Globalisation

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the purpose of the White Paper on globalisation.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the White Paper will build on the existing White Paper on International Development and will set out how the increased capital flows, trade and the effects of information technology and the other forces of change commonly referred to as globalisation can be managed in a way which encourages the systematic reduction of poverty world-wide.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very skilful reply. Does she agree that by definition the very poorest people are beyond the reach of globalisation and are left out of national statistics? How can the Government meet the 2015 development targets if through a process of globalisation they are unable to reach the very poorest people?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, trade investment and new technology are creating huge wealth. The challenge is to ensure that developing countries, and in particular the poor people in developing countries, benefit from those changes. We believe our responsibility is to improve the climate for domestic investment and to provide an environment which ensures that trade and investment in developing countries contributes to poverty reduction. In that way we anticipate that we will meet our targets for 2015.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the White Paper include a short explanation of the term "globalisation"?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it will certainly include an explanation. Whether it is short or not will depend on the editing we do over the next few months.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report produced by the European Communities Select Committee on the future role of the World Trade Organisation? Its view, generally speaking, is that globalisation and increased world trade are good. However, in terms of their impact on the third world--on the poorest countries--there need to be certain changes on our side. I refer in particular to the opening of our markets, so that free trade is turned into fair trade, and to the need for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that I am aware of that Select Committee report. In fact I read that report. It made very interesting reading indeed. The recent Lome Convention, agreed in February this year, included a new trade deal which will gradually integrate the African Caribbean and Pacific countries into the global economy. We recognise that that will take time. Therefore, we will maintain the current preferential arrangements for those countries until 2008. But we also recognise that we need to look at developed countries and the kind of access that developing countries have to their markets.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that in her input to the White Paper, which sounds as if it will be quite a long one, the point is made that the best engines of development in the modern world now are globalised free trade and global free movements of capital? Those, if handled properly, are the best means of bringing development not only to the more prosperous regions but also to the poorer countries of the world. That should be the centrepiece of the policy in the White Paper.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. However, it is important that we recognise that the responsibility is two-way. It is about investment and market, but it is also about responsibility of governments to create the kind of conditions which will encourage investments. Issues like good governance, putting in place good social policies, ensuring that developing countries and assisting developing countries to put in place pro-poor growth strategies will also be important.

Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the failure of the G8 summit at Okinawa to make any progress on debt cancellation of the poorest countries, will the Government make every effort before the next summit next year to persuade the more reluctant members of the G8 group that it is actually in their own best interests to cancel debt, so that the poorest countries can actually spend on goods and services the money they receive from foreign trade rather than contribute to the already full coffers of the banks and financial institutions?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with my noble friend that there was a failure at Okinawa. Clearly, the issue of debt relief was a key part of the meetings in Cologne last year which put in place the reviewed HIPC framework. We were somewhat disappointed that the number of countries we had hoped would reach decision point had not yet done so. However, there was a renewed effort to implement the Cologne agreement on debt relief. My noble friend may recall that at the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank it was agreed that an implementation committee would be established to speed up the process of countries reaching decision point. I do not think that Okinawa was a failure. The countries put in place mechanisms to speed up that process.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that education and health are absolutely crucial to the success of developing countries in a globalising world. In the White Paper on globalisation will she therefore address the issue of the cuts which have been made in the past two years in both education and public health, especially in East Asia, as a result of pressures for structural adjustment and budget correction. Can she say whether the Government will continue to try to ringfence education and health in any structural adjustment programmes that are advanced?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, makes some very important points about social policies, in particular education and health. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the poverty reduction strategies which are being put in place in developing countries through their co-operation with the World Bank lay great stress on the importance of education and health. We very much welcome that move and will continue to push for the inclusion of such strategies in developing countries.
	With respect to the specific question about East Asia and the cuts in public health, we will continue to push developing countries that we work with to try and improve the resources that they put into education and health because we see those as the cornerstone of our poverty reduction strategy.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one gigantic distortion in the global market is that the free movement of capital is not balanced by the free movement of labour? Will the White Paper address the issue of the compensating arrangements that have to be made strategically by the international community to balance the absence of the free movement of labour in the market?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that discussions are going on in government about the benefits of migration. We are particularly concerned that much of the flight of skilled labour from developing countries results in problems in developing countries themselves in terms of capacity and human resources. I am not sure to what extent the detail of this argument and analysis will be in the White Paper but we are considering it in the run-up to the production of the White Paper.

House of Lords: Application for Membership

Earl Ferrers: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the proposal to advertise for applicants for membership of the House of Lords meets with their approval.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government welcome the establishment of the Independent Appointments Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. The particular working methods adopted by the noble Lord and his commissioners are for them to decide. However, we recognise that advertising is consistent with the aim we set out in our White Paper on reforming the House of Lords that the commission should operate an open and transparent nominations system. If advertising widens the trawl for potential Members of this House so that the commission's nominations improve the gender, ethnic and age balance here, the Government will certainly approve.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I am even more grateful to her for replying to my Question herself and not asking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to answer. Does the noble Baroness agree that we really have plumbed the very depths of insult and vulgarity when we have to advertise in a newspaper and ask people to send in a mission statement for them to be considered for membership of the House of Lords? Does the noble Baroness realise that the commission intends to advertise on the Internet and have its own website? I suppose that would be called wannabeapeer.com. Do the Government intend to follow their new-found tradition and invite people to apply for the position of, for instance, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords? Does the noble Baroness think that that is a good idea, or a bad idea, or does she have no view?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the appointments commission's remit is to appoint people to the Cross Benches. If he is suggesting that it would be preferable for those offices to be held by members of the Cross Benches, perhaps his own Front Bench might have different ideas. The noble Earl has a consistent and long-standing record of opposing any change to the membership of this House. I remind him of what he said when the issue of women Peers becoming Members of this House was first suggested. I quote from the relevant Hansard:
	"I think it would be an unmitigated disaster".
	He went on:
	"Frankly, I find women in politics highly distasteful".--[Official Report, 3/12/57; cols. 708-10.]
	I suggest, respectfully, to the noble Earl that he would perhaps be more comfortable if he abandoned pretending to be the Earl Canute and recognised that "dot com" and the 21st century have arrived.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the proposal is adopted, how is it likely to affect the right of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House? Can my noble friend confirm that it is still the Government's policy that hereditary Peers will not have the right to sit in your Lordships' House? Can she scotch the rumours that their removal might not take place at all or even that we shall have to wait until after the next election?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that we are talking about the appointments commission, which will recommend appointments to the Cross Benches. It will not recommend appointments on the basis of party nominations or indeed on any other basis. The Government have always made clear their determination to proceed with the next stage of House of Lords reform. That will be a matter for legislation and not for the activities of the appointments commission.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of a remark made by the noble Baroness towards the end of her first Answer to the noble Earl, can she confirm that no requirement will be placed on the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to apply any quotas to the selection made from this trawl, whether they be quotas as regards gender, race, religion or any other category?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not think that anything I said suggested that I would be in favour of quotas or that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would be required to take that kind of approach when considering the appointments. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is aware that in his report of the Royal Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, suggested, for example, that not less than 30 per cent of the Members of the fully reformed House should be women.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is correct that the members of the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, were themselves appointed after the Government had utilised the services of a firm of headhunters? If that is the case, do the Government intend to extend that system of selection? Might they not even extend it to the appointment of the Prime Minister?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, frankly, that reflects a misunderstanding of the assistance given to the Cabinet Office. As I have explained to the House on several occasions, the PricewaterhouseCoopers Executive Search and Selection exercise produced a long list of people who might be interested in serving in positions on the appointments commission. Those people were then selected by an independent panel chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet Office. It had nothing to do with the Government.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Baroness, who is the Leader of the House, that it might make a welcome change if, from time to time, she were to demonstrate that she had given careful consideration to ideas put forward and expressed by those with whom she does not always agree? If she cared to look back at those who in the past have occupied her position, I think she will find that they enjoyed a reputation for uniform courtesy and civility. It would be nice if she were to emulate them.

Noble Lords: Shame.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his remark that I am discourteous.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the simplest and most straightforward way of settling the question of who should or should not be Members of this House is to put in place a fully elected Chamber as soon as we possibly can?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend will know that that is not the position taken by the Government. The Government have accepted the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in the report of the Royal Commission that a minority of Members of the second Chamber should be directly elected.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the noble Baroness take us a little further and tell the House when the Government will give an unequivocal reply to the question: what is that composition to be? When will the Government make up their mind and come forward with a plan?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is aware that, on the part of the Government, there is no intention to delay this matter. As I explained in my reply to my noble friend Lord Dormand, that is a question for any legislation which is proposed.

Universal Bank

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there have been any contacts with European Union officials about the legality of government financial assistance for the universal bank recently proposed to assist rural post offices; and, if so, when the first contacts took place.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the European Competition Commissioner was informed on 4th July about the new package of measures to modernise the post office network. As the detailed projects are developed, officials will consult with the European Commission to ensure compatibility with state aid rules.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I am also somewhat concerned. In June, when we discussed in Committee the Post Office Bill, the Government gave an assurance that there was no possibility of not supporting rural post offices. However, I understand that the proposal to set up a universal bank has been made without approval being sought and in advance of legislation that is currently moving through this House. Can the noble Lord clarify matters for me?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in such cases it is the usual practice to apply to the commissioner, especially when a detailed proposal has been made. That is the normal procedure. We believe that our proposals will be in accordance with the relevant competition issues. Given that the universal bank is to be established jointly with the banks and that it will cover areas where there is an absence of banking services, it is difficult to see that the proposals will infringe on competition policy. However, that is for the European Commission to establish.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend will recall the cautious welcome I gave to the concept of the universal bank when we discussed the Postal Services Bill. Is my noble friend now in a position to give us further details of the functions and services to be provided by the universal bank? Have the proposals been progressed to the point where they are ready to be presented to those people who are likely to use the universal bank?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the broad outline of the services of the universal bank is clear. It will not offer overdraft or borrowing facilities. It will offer basic bank accounts, along with a direct debit facility which will enable many customers to reduce their gas and electricity costs. Furthermore, a cash card facility will be offered to enable cash to be withdrawn from ATMs. The business case will be developed further over the period up to September, by which time details of the services to be offered will be complete.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is true that no informal contacts were made with the commissioner before these proposals were made? Generally, it is the case that ongoing relationships with the Commission allow people, in particular those involved in industry, to gauge the temperature of the water, as it were. It seems rather strange that we do not yet know, at least informally, whether we may be 100 per cent or even 90 per cent certain that these proposals will be approved. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I have indicated that it seems clear that the broad outline of this proposal is unlikely to infringe competition policy. I cannot confirm specifically whether informal contacts were made. I shall look into it and write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate to the House why it should be necessary to consult the European Commission at all on this matter? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that the costs of these representations will be included in the impact cost assessment, in accordance with Foreign Office instructions in connection with such matters?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, because the possibility exists that this could conflict with competition issues, it is clearly right that we should put the matter before the commissioner. So far as concerns the costs involved, I cannot believe that these will be particularly significant in relation to the size of the total project.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister clarify for me two small, simple and specific matters? Further to the Minister's comments to my noble friends, can he confirm that, at the point when the Performance and Innovation Unit announced its rescue plan for rural sub-post offices, stating at that time that one element would be a universal bank, and at the point when the Minister repeated a Statement made by his honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place announcing the Government's total commitment to ensuring a network of rural post offices, the Department of Trade and Industry at that stage had not sought the approval of the EU? If that is the case that would mean that, when the Statement was made, it could not have been possible for the Government to confirm their plans.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am always worried about a specific question, particularly when it is described as being "small". I did say categorically that we made information available to the European Commission subsequent to the publication of the PIU report.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister respond to the second part of my question?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are committed to these proposals. We shall try to get them agreed with the European Commission. Furthermore, we shall ensure that the financial assistance to be offered will be compatible with state aid regulations.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, many noble Lords are unhappy with the Minister's response. It does not seem right to take legislation through this House which suggests proposals that the Government cannot then fulfil. We now find ourselves in that situation. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the article published in the Sunday Telegraph headed, "EU may block plans to save rural post offices"? I do not think that the Minister has answered fully my original Question.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a matter that the noble Baroness and I have discussed on many occasions. The idea of a universal bank has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation, which related to the status of the Post Office. This is a separate issue concerned with the services that will be offered. It in no way relates to the legislation, which, so far as I remember, does not refer to a universal bank.

Sex Offenders: Publication of List

Baroness Harris of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any Minister of the Crown has been in contact with the Press Complaints Commission following the publication in the News of the World of a list of child sex offenders.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no. I understand, however, that the Press Complaints Commission has received and will be considering complaints relating to the News of the World article. Responsibility for disclosing information about sex offenders or any other dangerous offenders rests with the police. They will do so if public safety requires it. The Government believe that in these matters the press ought to act on the advice of the police.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the statement by the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose spokesman on these matters is the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler, who said:
	"The News of the World's action in publishing a list of alleged sex offenders amounts to irresponsible journalism ... Past evidence suggests that the publication of such information causes serious breaches of child protection"?
	Does the Minister agree that if the News of the World persists in this appalling campaign it is certain that innocent people will be attacked, as happened recently in Manchester in the case of Mr Ian Armstrong?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I should like to associate myself with the noble Baroness's comments. I agree with her; and I entirely agree with Tony Butler, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire. He was right to describe this as irresponsible journalism. The noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention to the sad case of Ian Armstrong who was attacked by vigilantes. Not only was his personal safety put at risk but also that of his two sons when thugs gathered outside his home. It is greatly to be regretted that the News of the World has decided to conduct this campaign in this way. It should listen carefully to the advice not just of Tony Butler but of all chief constables, who have an important role to play in these matters.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Press Complaints Commission will hold a preliminary meeting this afternoon to consider these issues? However, we shall not be able to adjudicate until we have heard the evidence from both sides and both parties. Then, we shall adjudicate in accordance with a published code of practice, taking into consideration the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains important provisions on both privacy and freedom of information.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that all Members will welcome the noble Lord's statement. The Press Complaints Commission is right to consider the matter in that way. It is perhaps time for the commission to consider what further advice it might give on such matters, where clearly there must be sensitive handling of information such as that which the News of the World decided to publish.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, "naming and shaming" has a dubious history. There are instances where the perpetrators of crimes can become vulnerable--though obviously not as vulnerable as those who have been their victims. Are the Government aware of the extent of the concern about this kind of journalism? The spin-offs for the perpetrators' family and friends and for a whole network of relationships in the community are of a profoundly destabilising kind.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of that. Again, I associate myself closely with the right reverend Prelate's comments. We must approach these matters carefully and sensitively. The police have an important role to play. It is best left to them to make the kinds of judgments that are necessary in these circumstances. There may be occasions when it is right to provide additional public information when public safety is of paramount concern--but only in those circumstances.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the purpose of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was to enable the proper authorities to keep track of sex offenders, which is right and proper? Does he agree that the register is probably the most successful in the world, with a 97 per cent "take-up"? Does he further agree that the publication of the list by the News of the World is an abuse of press freedom, and that its threat to continue to publish jeopardises a very good record and, sadly, puts more children at risk?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the great difficulty is that the approach adopted by the News of the World may well put children at risk because it will drive sex offenders underground. What we need is for the authorities to know where they are. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the Sex Offenders Register, which has 12,000 names on it. It has a 97 per compliance rate, compared with the best register abroad, with an 85 per cent compliance rate. We can take comfort from that. I believe that our approach in these matters is right. The Government's approach has been balanced and proportionate. I believe that Members of this House will look forward to the additional measures which it is our intention to introduce by virtue of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Complaints Commission would be infinitely more effective and more satisfactory to its members, this House and the people of this country if it could impose substantial fines? At present, the News of the World will laugh at any penalty imposed on it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to direct the Press Complaints Commission on how best to operate. The noble Lord makes an important point. But in this country we greatly value press freedom. The PCC does an excellent job in that regard and strikes a difficult balance. It is worthy of our support.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS

[The page and line numbers refer to HL Bill 54 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

17 Clause 38, page 34, line 22, at end insert-
	(""(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete."")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
	17A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.
	Your Lordships will recall that the Government announced on 15th March this year that they would set up a scheme called the inherited SERPS scheme to provide redress to those individuals who were given incomplete or incorrect advice about widows' benefits in SERPS and had then relied on that advice. The amendment inserted in the Bill by your Lordships would extend the protection offered by the Government to people who took no action at all to obtain information. That could end up costing the same as reversing the policy altogether--some £23 billion by 2050. In other words, the original amendment makes the scheme pointless.
	Not surprisingly, the other place rejected such a potentially large financial commitment. We have said that we are prepared to accept the responsibility that we inherited to put right the inherited SERPS mess. What we cannot agree to is to hand out huge amounts of taxpayers' money to people who were never misinformed and who might well have assumed that, as with occupational pension schemes, widows would receive only half of their benefit.
	Since this House debated the matter, we have been working up the detail of the scheme--I pay tribute to Age Concern as represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross--and we have been consulting widely. As a result, we have already clarified in the Bill the eligibility criteria for the inherited SERPS scheme.
	The original legislation provides that the scheme may deal with claims made by people who, having received incomplete or incorrect information about the SERPS reduction, either failed to take any steps that they would have taken or took any steps that they would not have taken had they received correct information. The ombudsman pointed out that, 15 years down the road, it would be difficult for many people to demonstrate that they would have taken a particular course of action, or not, had they been correctly advised. The Bill will now ensure that the scheme can provide redress for people who, because they relied on the wrong information, were denied the opportunity to consider taking relevant steps to protect the position of their spouses.
	As a further step, the Social Security Advisory Committee issued a consultation paper on 14th July. We shall look very carefully at the responses, which are due in by 25th August. When Parliament comes back in the autumn we should have some draft regulations on which the Social Security and Public Administration Select Committees can comment. We want to be certain that the regulations which govern the scheme will enable those who were misled by incorrect or incomplete information to be protected, but we cannot include those who were never misinformed--certainly not at a cost of £23 billion. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist that their amendment forms part of the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 17A.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have debated this matter on a large number of occasions. Certainly, the cost to which the Minister referred is extremely important. No doubt that matter has influenced those in another place. I was slightly surprised by one comment of the Minister at the beginning of her remarks. She suggested that if the amendment was accepted the scheme, which throughout these proceedings we have welcomed, would potentially have no effect and the cost would be the same as if there were no scheme.
	This amendment switches the burden of proof, which the Ombudsman has said should happen and the Government have accepted. However, that covers only the first of two hurdles to be cleared by an individual who makes a claim. First, the person must show that (in the words of the amendment) he "received incorrect or incomplete information". If that is taken as read the individual must still be able to demonstrate that he has suffered financially as a result of failing to take action because of that incorrect or incomplete information.
	Consequently, it does not seem to me--no doubt the Minister will explain it if I have misunderstood the position--that acceptance of the fact that people have cleared the first hurdle necessarily means that they will clear both, which must happen for the scheme to incur any cost. Effectively, the amendment seeks to implement the recommendation of the Ombudsman which the Government say they accept. I do not believe that it does any more than that. If that results in other people clearing the second hurdle public expenditure will be incurred.
	In another place Mr Rooker quoted very large figures of the kind referred to today by the noble Baroness. The Minister of State said:
	"The lower estimate of doing so is £8 billion, but we have no idea of the number of claimants, and the upper estimate ... is £23 billion".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 809.]
	That cost is spread over a period and will not be incurred in one, two or even three years.
	We all accept that this is probably the worst administrative financial disaster that has ever occurred, or certainly for many years. It appears that misleading leaflets were issued. It is common ground that if someone can show, on the basis of very relaxed standards of proof--I accept what the Government have said as to that--that he received misleading information, the position is covered. But many people believed that they would receive the full pension at the time they first heard anything about this matter. If in the mean time they received no information at all to say that the position had changed it is reasonable to suppose that they took a particular course of action which, had they known about the change, they would not have taken.
	As far as concerns the cost estimate, I am not clear about the extent to which it turns on the point that I have just made; namely, whether the Government claim that the increase in cost covers those cases where people have received no information about the change--that is the higher figure--or it applies only to those individuals who can demonstrate that they were misinformed. Clearly, we need a breakdown of the estimate of £8 billion to £23 billion, which by any standards reflects a large margin of error. Some calculation of the cost must have been made; otherwise, the Government would simply say that they do not know.
	If one looks at the recent spending review, that part which is devoted to the Department of Social Security--I pointed out earlier that the relevant section appears in a different place from that indicated in the contents page--refers only to the building of a new IT system and the ability of people involved in social security to telephone for answers to their problems and so on. However, in relation to this matter, which I presume is a development worth mentioning, I see no reference to the potential cost and what the Government are doing about it. Noble Lords will be assisted if the Minister can clarify the position before a final view is taken on this matter.
	This matter has dragged on for nearly two years. In another place Mr Rooker said that the Government still had not managed to put any flesh on the bones of the scheme. It is true that further consultations have taken place, but this matter has been going on for a long while. It would be helpful to have an update. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we are likely to have a scheme which is better formulated than the present one and we may reach the stage when people can expect to make applications.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I congratulate the Department of Social Security on producing a major Bill with fewer than 100 government amendments to it and a list of amendments in your Lordships' House which is considerably smaller than the Bill itself, contrary to what appears to be the usual experience. Given that the other place is relying on privilege in this matter, there is nothing that we can do. Therefore, I have nothing further to add to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, this is the last opportunity open to noble Lords to debate the inherited SERPS scandal--or severe problem--as part of this Bill. Just as it formed part of the Welfare Reform Act 1999, largely through the redoubtable efforts of my noble friend Lord Rix and, as the Minister kindly acknowledged, the work of Age Concern, I am certain that the matter will return next year when we debate the regulations. It is about that that I should like to speak for a moment.
	I understand, but am obviously disappointed, that the Government could not at Report stage accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, nor my own. However, I was reassured that genuine consultation would occur between now and the introduction of the promised regulations.
	I am already aware of the work begun by the Social Security Advisory Committee on 19th July. However, I still do not believe that matters are as clear as they should be. From briefings with Age Concern I am aware that many of those affected are not very happy with the prospect of the protected rights scheme. One wonders how many of those who are still unaware would be happy with it if they did know about it--probably not a great number. We now must work with the Minister to ensure that things turn out as well as possible for the people affected.
	There is one thing to help us. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, Section 52 of the Welfare Reform Act 1999 is now our fail-safe mechanism. That Act provides that if the Government do not produce regulations by October 2002 the cut in SERPS will not take place. Thus, I hope the Minister can meet the expectation she raised on Report to my concern and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the regulations will be genuinely consulted on, or, if we are unhappy with them, that this House and Members in another place will use their power to reject the regulations. For once the power only to accept or reject is useful to us, because rejecting could be seen by some as better than accepting in entirety.
	Finally, I ask the Minister when we can expect the regulations to be debated by this House. Will it be during the next parliamentary Session?

Lord Rix: My Lords, I apologise for being late. I saw on the annunciator what was taking place, but unfortunately the lift appeared to be engaged.
	I noticed that when Lords Amendment No. 17 was being debated in another place Dafydd Wigley made reference to me and the regulations on which we had received assurances from the Minister at the last stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Reference was made to the fact that I was speaking on behalf of Mencap. May I make it quite clear, I was not speaking on behalf of Mencap. I was speaking on behalf of old people, like myself, and hope that the Minister can assure me that the regulations to which she referred at the last stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House will refer to "old age pensioners", not exclusively to people with a learning disability.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I respond first to the points on timing, which were raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I cannot go much beyond what I said. The Social Security Select Committee has issued a consultation paper. The Government will be looking at responses to that paper. In the autumn there should be draft regulations for the Social Security Select Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee to comment on in advance of those regulations coming to your Lordships' House.
	The noble Baroness said that if they were not satisfactory she hoped that the House would reject them. If it did, people who were entitled to money would get none. Perhaps she might wish to reflect on that position further.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I am happy to confirm, as I did when he pressed me at Report stage, that people with a severe and continuing mental disability, and those speaking for them, their advocates, would be covered.
	The noble Lord's first question was about money and how the Government arrived at the figures of £8 billion to £23 billion. Basically, the assumption of £8 billion is that on the protected rights scheme, with a deferral until October 2002, and then the introduction of the protected rights scheme, we expect approximately 5 million applications, which therefore costs the £8 billion figure. Under the noble Lord's amendment virtually everybody would qualify. I know the noble Lord does not believe this, but that is the legal advice I have received, so he may wish to take these figures seriously. Under his amendment, the 4 million pensioners on SERPS, as well as 16 million people of working age, would qualify. That would mean a potential eligibility of 20 million people as opposed to 5 million. That is how the Government judge the cost of £23 billion. The veracity of those assumptions can be tested but that is the basis for them.
	The noble Lord's second point was about the two steps. It is true that Government are undertaking two steps, as he described it. The difference between us is this. I believe that if people did not know what the changes were, they cannot usefully say what they would have done had they known. If they did not know, they did not know. That seems to be the gap between the noble Lord and myself.
	Within social security more generally, whether someone does or does not know is not a defence or a claim of entitlement. For example, when a person becomes a widow, when there is a change of benefit status, or whatever, or if there is any change in regulations, the DSS does not expect to send out leaflets individually notifying 20 million people in receipt of benefit. It expects information to be gained through leaflets, provided that the leaflets available at the local offices are correct.
	The problem was that the leaflets were incorrect. The information was incorrect. With the protected rights scheme we are addressing the problem we inherited--not that people may or may not have known of the change in the law but the fact that a smaller group was clearly misled by the information received. The protected rights scheme is to address that very real problem of misinformation--the equivalent, if you like, of government mis-selling.
	I hope that with that explanation we are correcting the problem we inherited. We are seeking the widest possible consultation. I hope that as a result your Lordships will be satisfied in the autumn when the appropriate regulations are considered and that your Lordships will accept the Commons response to Amendment 17.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

18 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause-
	:TITLE3:CONCURRENT HOLDING OF PENSIONS
	(" . A person shall be able to hold both a stakeholder pension and an occupational pension concurrently and without financial penalty.")
	The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason--
	18A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 18A. This amendment was intended to enable people to be members of both the stakeholders scheme and an occupational scheme and make tax privileged pension contributions into each scheme at the same time. The amendment would, however, be ineffective because the legislation which governs such contributions is contained in Inland Revenue legislation, which this amendment does not alter. In any event, the Government have recognised, and were consulting at the time, that greater flexibility would assist people to build up pension savings. On 5th July the Government announced that people earning up to £30,000 a year will be able to save an extra £3,600 a year in stakeholder pensions, as well as saving in an occupational pension scheme. This means that almost 90 per cent of employees contributing to occupational schemes will be able to enjoy the benefit of stakeholder pensions as well. This announcement has been widely welcomed by the pensions industry.
	The Government do not, however, believe that the cost of further extending this concession--which is what the amendment would have done--can be justified. Our partial concurrency benefits almost 90 per cent of people at a cost of £150 million. To extend it by the extra 12 or 13 per cent, for example, to people with incomes above £30,000 would incur a cost of a further £250 million for the better off. This Government believe that it is right to target available resources on moderate and low earners, and those most likely to be moving between schemes and therefore might find themselves in a confusing situation. That is what our proposals will do and I hope your Lordships will welcome them. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist on their original amendment.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 18 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18A.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to rise in the role of Oliver Twist. The Government have made a considerable concession on the arguments, although they propose to implement it in a different way from that which we envisaged. The level at which the Government regard people as low paid, medium paid or highly paid seems to fluctuate rather wildly between one part of the Bill and another, but £30,000 a year in this context is not an unreasonable level. While we would have preferred full concurrency, the argument is accepted.
	There is one question for the Minister. Does she envisage that that limit will eventually be indexed?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should imagine so but I should want to take advice.
	The reason for the £30,000 figure is that stakeholder pensions were designed for those with an income of between £10,000 and £20,000 but, given indexation and people's climb up career ladders and so on, many of those on pensions of £18,000 or £19,000 may go up to about £25,000 or £27,000. The Government do not want people inadvertently committing a fraud by continuing one pension scheme while coming into an occupational pension scheme.
	I am pleased that the noble Lord and the industry welcome our new position. I am also delighted that many people will have greater protection for their old age. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

26A After Clause 60, insert the following new clause-
	:TITLE3:("CHAPTER IV
	:TITLE3:WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS
	:TITLE3:WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS--ENTITLEMENT
	.--(1) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of this section when--
	(a) a report on the armed forces pension scheme has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence; and
	(b) the results of any public consultation upon a report as cited in paragraph (a) above have been published;
	and a report of any review carried out under this section shall be laid before Parliament.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
	(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
	(4) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) are--
	(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,
	(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,
	(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939, or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),
	(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	26A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.
	The reason given in the other place for rejecting your Lordships' amendment was that it infringes its financial privileges, but there are other reasons. Your Lordships will be aware that last Thursday the Government announced their intention to allow widows and widowers to keep their Armed Forces attributable pension should they choose to remarry. This will be achieved through secondary legislation and therefore the new clause inserted in the Bill is no longer required. I am sure that all noble Lords will want to join me in paying tribute to the War Widows Association and to the noble Baroness, our noble friend, Lady Strange, who have campaigned so assiduously to ensure that the war widows who are currently in receipt of an attributable Armed Forces pension can continue to receive the payment if they decide to remarry.
	As your Lordships will know, the Government have been examining the case for changing the services' occupational pensions as part of the current review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. That review is looking at the whole package of pension benefits and the outcome will be subject to full public consultation.
	I am pleased to be able to advise the House that one of the recommendations of the review will be that all widows or widowers of service personnel covered by the new pension arrangements will be able to keep their service pension for life. That is regardless of whether the death was attributable to service or to some other cause. As is normal with changes to pension schemes, this provision will apply to future service and future pension recipients only.
	It was in the knowledge of the recommendations of the review that at earlier stages of the Bill I asked the House to wait and not to cut across it. However, as the timing of the review has slipped somewhat, it seemed right in the context of your Lordships' concerns that we should bring forward and announce that part of the review. It was always intended to arrest your Lordships' concerns.
	In addition, we have recognised the exceptional circumstances in which the Armed Forces operate, so we intend to ensure that widows and widowers already in receipt of an attributable pension will be able to retain that pension should they decide to remarry. The new provision will be operable as soon as we are able to amend the existing legislation.
	Therefore this change will be introduced ahead of the introduction of any other recommendations made by the review. It does not require primary legislation. It can be introduced using regulations in the prerogative instruments, which will need to be amended, approved by the Queen and placed before Parliament before the policy can be implemented. The rules applying to each of the services can be changed by subsidiary legislation to be effective in the autumn.
	Furthermore, the new clause excludes widows who qualify for a category A DSS retirement pension. We see no reason why, in the spirit of your Lordships' concerns, widows and widowers who have reached pension age should not be allowed to remarry and keep their pension if they want to do so. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, did not go far enough, so we propose to go further and extend the right to retain the war widows pension on remarriage to those who are currently over pensionable age.
	The Government have announced that they will introduce amendments to the existing service pensions regulations. We will provide that in future widows and widowers will be able to retain their attributable pension should they decide to remarry. The intention is that the legislation will be in place in the autumn and will go further than provided for in this clause. The wider pension review will come forward with provisions for existing servicemen, which your Lordships' debate cut across.
	For that reason, we are accepting the substance of your Lordships' recommendations. It was part of the review which slipped in time but we are going further and extending the provision to those over the age of retirement. In the light of that, I hope that your Lordships will be pleased not to insist on their amendment.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have not often served on committees set up to give reasons to your Lordships for rejecting or accepting amendments. However, like the noble Baroness, I believe that from time to time such committees are unimaginative and come up with the usual formula. In fairness to the Government, perhaps excessively so. The committee could have stated that it was making alternative arrangements which were better, and it missed a spin point!
	However, the amendment is welcome and I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the War Widows Association and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on the way in which she has pursued the provision.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is not here today to see the final vindication of her campaign. We on these Benches strongly supported the amendment and are delighted that, although it will not reach the statute book, a better version will find its place. We are therefore entirely happy with the amendment.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, this is a very special parliamentary occasion for many of us in all parts of the House, not least of course for the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, whose constancy in the cause of making life better for Britain's war widows is rightly honoured by all who know her.
	It is a special occasion also, as my noble friend said, for the admirable War Widows Association, over which the noble Baroness presides and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I have the honour to be vice-presidents.
	The conventions of the House do not allow me from these Benches to call the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, as a Cross-Bencher, "my noble friend". But in fact we have been good friends and fellow campaigners for many years. Her parliamentary record is held in high admiration and has been further enhanced by her work on the Bill.
	As she is unable for compelling family reasons to attend the debate, she asked me by letter to say how deeply sorry she is not to be here. Characteristically, she writes in praise of everyone who contributed to previous debates on this issue and specifically referred to my noble friends Lady Hollis, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean and Lord Carter, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in full recognition that Ministers past and present who have been unable to help on the scenes have often done so behind them.
	Her message also refers to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the noble Earl, her kinsman, Lord Russell, Mrs Jacqui Lait MP and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has often spoken here and with such distinction about the rightful claims of war widows.
	My right honourable friend Jeff Rooker MP has also been most supportive. Indeed, he personally espoused the war widows' cause and is to be warmly congratulated on his speech about it in another place on 24th July. He said:
	"Members of the armed forces enter into a unique contract with the state. In effect, they agree to die for their country if necessary. They are commanded to go into situations where they might be killed. It goes without saying that the people of this country ... are extremely grateful to them for their dedication, service and sacrifice".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 816.]
	That is the case which many of us here today--and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Strange--have argued in justification of the change in the law that has now been announced. For my part, I believe that of all duties that it falls to Parliament to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so. That is the duty we are addressing today.
	A war widow's pension is not a passport to la dolce vita, and it never has been--as I know from being the son of a war widow who was widowed when I was seven--any more than a war pension itself. Indeed, I am reminded of Kipling's sharp comment on the subject when he wrote:
	"Think where 'e's been,
	Think what 'e's seen, Think of his pension-- An' Gawd save the Queen".
	I want also briefly to refer today to all the enormous help given by the Officers' Pensions Society on this and related issues of importance to war and service widows and, in particular, to the untiring efforts of its former General Secretary, Major General Peter Bonnet. I know that his friends on both sides of both Houses of Parliament wish him Godspeed in recovering from his illness and look forward to seeing him again soon. We shall rejoice to see him.
	General Bonnet's successor, Major General James Gordon, wrote to me yesterday welcoming the Government's decision to introduce pensions for life for war widows, regardless of whether they remarry. However, like others of us, he deeply regrets the continuing exclusion of service widows and widows who have already remarried, or whose spouses died from non-attributable causes while serving just as devotedly, or whose circumstances pre-date the changes in the regulations. General Gordon writes:
	"This Society has always maintained that all service widows should be treated the same when it comes to remarriage, as why should anyone be financially penalised for the natural act of trying to build a new life after bereavement. If the MoD Pensions Review eventually delivers that, as was indicated in a joint MoD/DSS press release on 21 July 2000, a great wrong will have been righted, but the 'no retrospection' rule will inevitably exclude many equally deserving people".
	I know that my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will have that in mind in their continuing work on provision for war and war service widows and hope very much that they will keep in close touch with the Officers' Pensions Society and the War Widows Association alike on all issues of concern to them.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall be brief. As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, one would not know from the rather dull words of Amendment No. 26A that any good news has been given by the Government. The words look like the usual dead hand of the Treasury. However, the good news has been given and I believe that it is only fair and, indeed, perhaps gallant of me to stand up and congratulate the Government on taking this decision.
	I want to make one serious point. I understand that the noble Baroness is saying that the regulations will not come into force until later in the year. I believe that we shall have to make it clear to certain war widows who may be lining up their men for a trip to the altar that they should wait until the regulations are passed or they may find themselves on the wrong side of the dividing line. I am sure that the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lady Symons are aware of that point, and I shall probably send an e-mail to the indefatigable Mrs Jenny Green to remind her, not perhaps for her own benefit but so that she may disseminate the information to other members of the War Widows Association who may well be making plans.
	I believe that two groups should be thanked: first, your Lordships. I regret to say that, despite the noble Baroness's words, I am fairly certain that if we had not put a little steel into this issue, the Government would still be allowing the MoD to slip, as it is so good at doing and has done so efficiently for many years. Therefore, I believe that your Lordships, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, are to be congratulated.
	It is also only fair that I should remind your Lordships of the remarks that I made on a previous outing of this matter when I said that, as a Minister, I had tried to shift the MoD but had failed fairly miserably to persuade them to move. They continually told me that the matter was under review. My noble friend Lord Astor, who was then at the MoD, tried as well, and was probably told the same thing. I concluded that I hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean and Lady Hollis, would do better. In fact, I believe that I used a Scottish expression, hoping that "the lasses would do better than the laddies". I am pleased to see that the lasses have, indeed, in this instance at least, done better than the laddies.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am most grateful that the House has responded so warmly. I am delighted to be associated with this announcement. Therefore, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

[The page and line numbers refer to HL Bill 42 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

5 Clause 8, page 5, line 5, leave out ("of a government department's accounts")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	5A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 6A, 7 and 7A, 7B and 7C, and 8 and 8A.
	The issue of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive on the audit of and access to public expenditure is one which goes back not only to the beginning of the consideration of this Bill, nor back only to the National Audit Act 1983 or to the 1921 or the 1866 Acts. This issue is inherent in parliamentary government and I do not in any way regret the further debate on it that has taken place.
	I shall not give a history lesson; I shall refer only to the history of this Bill. From the beginning of the consideration of this Bill, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and members of the Public Accounts Committee have expressed their concerns about audit and access and have used the Bill as a vehicle to express their concerns. The Bill is not about accountability as such; it is about resource accounts. However, it is legitimate to say that, because it is about the accounts, it should cover also issues of access for audit purposes. That, indeed, has been a continuing theme throughout our debates.
	We have responded right from the beginning to concerns expressed by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and noble Lords opposite. First, we made clear our view that any new non-departmental public bodies which we set up since 1997 should be audited by the National Audit Office, and so they have been.
	Secondly, we made it clear in Clause 8(2)(b) of the Bill that access should be available not only to financial records held by departments but to those held by any outside bodies which are deputed to hold their financial records.
	Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, we made it clear in amendments introduced during the passage of the Bill, and notably Clause 23, that we believe that changes in the law are necessary. Clause 23 clarifies the role of the House of Commons in the control of the National Audit Office. It makes it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office are acting on behalf of the House of Commons and that they report directly to the House of Commons. I pay tribute to those who have exerted pressure on us. As a result we have made those matters clear.
	Clause 23 makes clear that the responsibilities of the National Audit Office apply to any body that,
	"exercises functions of a public nature or is entirely or substantially funded from public money".
	That goes a very long way towards a definition of the kind of public body that ought to be covered by the National Audit Office.
	We have responded from the start. Since then, further pressure has been exerted on audit and accountability. I do not object to that. On audit, the matter came to a vote and your Lordships decided not to pursue the matter. On accountability, when the Bill first arrived in this House, we set up the Sharman review, which is about not just audit, but accountability, which the Bill patently is not.
	I think that your Lordships have generally welcomed the accountability provisions. The Sharman committee met for the first time at 2.30 this afternoon. I do not know whether the meeting is still going on and whether we shall have the pleasure of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in his place. The committee is almost certainly thrashing out its terms of reference as we speak.
	Concerns were then expressed in this House about the implementation of any Sharman recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, waxed very eloquent on that. I do not blame him; he was entirely right to do so. We gave assurances that we would take the Sharman review very seriously. He is right to say that assurances are only assurances and should not be taken too seriously. I understand that, but the Sharman committee has many distinguished members, including many members of the Public Accounts Committee, as well as members of this House. We are not going to short-change them.
	We have done more. We introduced amendments to make clear that the recommendations of the Sharman committee could be implemented by secondary legislation without waiting for further primary legislation, as there could well be a gap of 40, 50, 60 or 80 years between major legislation on public accounts.
	The provisions in Clauses 8 and 23 that I have mentioned make it possible to implement any recommendations that the Sharman review may produce on greater scrutiny for audit purposes. Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B, which the manuscript amendment would remove, are a further assurance that any recommendations that Sharman makes about greater scrutiny for audit purposes can be implemented by secondary legislation. If the committee makes recommendations about value for money or other examination, that is fine. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury made clear in the Commons on Monday that we will take a positive and constructive view of any such recommendations which we believe can be implemented without primary legislation.
	I repeat our assurance that the Government will not shrink from implementing any recommendations from the Sharman committee if they appear to be for the benefit of both Parliament and the executive. Parliament and the executive clearly have a concurrent interest. I shall come to the divergences later, but they are both interested in the proper expenditure of public money. That is a fundamental basis of our reaction to any Sharman recommendations. Of course, without knowing what he will recommend, I cannot say that we will implement all his recommendations, but I hope that my assurances go as far as conceivably possible in explaining that we believe the examination worthwhile and that we propose to take the committee's recommendations very seriously, including--I make this clear in case it is not already apparent--any reconsideration of the provisions of the National Audit Act 1983, which was called into question in the Commons on Monday.
	The amendments carried in this House at Third Reading went much further than any amendments asked for or debated in the past. They went way beyond the examination for audit purposes of departments' or NDPBs' accounts. They covered the whole range of examination of public expenditure by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Mr David Davis read out the version of Clause 8 as it would have been if Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 had been carried. Subsection (1) read:
	"For the purposes of an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General--
	(a) he shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to any relevant documents; and (b) a person who holds or has control of any of these documents shall give the Comptroller and Auditor General any assistance, information or explanation which he requires in relation to any of those documents". The right would apply to any documents,
	"held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or
	(b) which are documents to which a government department or relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access".
	We resisted those amendments on the grounds that they went far beyond the scope of the Bill, even if they were not spoken to on that basis by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. They were taken up in Monday's debate in the Commons on the proper terms that they are issues between Parliament and the executive on the control of public expenditure. The eloquent speeches of Mr David Davis, Mr Edward Davey, Mr Alan Williams, Mr Robert Sheldon and others all addressed the relationship between Parliament and the executive in the control of public expenditure--not departmental audit, but the whole role of the National Audit Office in the examination of public expenditure. The debate was one-sided, with the Minister left on her own. The arguments will endure. Some of the things said will remain the constant concern of this Government and future governments for many years to come.
	However, that is not what we are debating today. The Opposition's manuscript amendment would not reinstate those Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. The Opposition want to replace our Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B with the original Lords Amendment No. 7, which applies only to departmental audit.
	This is a strange kind of ping-pong. We start a serious process of discussion of public policy. Points are put to us and we respond. Those who have put their points to us then move away to the next ping-pong table. We respond there. They move away again. We are not playing at the same ping-pong table at any stage. We have responded positively to everything that has been said to us. I am even responding positively to the points that were made in the Commons on Monday on the wider issues raised by the Lords amendments that the Commons have disagreed to. Instead of debating the matter discussed in the Commons, we are going back to the issue of access for departmental audit.
	I shall not repeat the arguments that I used on a number of occasions about the defects of the Lords' amendment which would now be re-instated--the definition of a non-departmental body, the burdens of businesses and so on. We have gone past that. I am convinced that this is now crunch time.
	I am also convinced that this Government have gone the extra mile in seeking to persuade your Lordships, and Parliament in general, that this is a Bill that is coherent in its own right and pays proper respect to the rights of Parliament, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General in departmental accounts. The Government have set up a body to examine the wider issue of accountability in the form of the Sharman review, and they have given every assurance that the Sharman review will be taken extremely seriously and can be implemented by government. Under those circumstances, I shall be sorry if your Lordships return to the amendment now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5A.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments enumerated by the Minister. The Minister has recounted the history of these matters and we are now debating a series of amendments. The Minister referred to the various amendments that the Government have tabled, in particular the reasons given by the Commons. Earlier I commented on the way in which committees set up to produce such reasons sometimes get into a rut. On this occasion the reason given is that,
	"it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient".
	I believe that is a strange reason because the whole of the Bill concerns financial accounting and audit arrangements.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reason given is a privilege reason. It is comparable to the reason in relation to public expenditure. It is not a new phrase; it is always used when the Commons conceive that their views are affected by Commons privilege.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I realise that. However, it is a strange reason to give when the Bill is concerned with these very arrangements. If it were the case that we were precluded from moving such amendments, one would have thought that the Speaker would have certified the Bill as a money Bill in the first place. As I understand it, that is not the case. Your Lordships have considered this point all the way through.
	The Minister has stressed--to some extent what he has said is correct--that the Government have sought to meet a number of points that have been pressed upon them in another place and in this House. He suggests that the amendments that were tabled in another place seek to meet the points that we make in saying that we should stay with Amendment No. 7.
	It is clear from the speech of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr David Davis, in another place--I believe it is also the general view of the Public Accounts Committee--that he does not regard these amendments now before us in lieu of the original amendment as satisfactory. He pointed out that,
	"First, the power provides the Treasury with the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General can or cannot have access".
	It is for Parliament to decide that and not for the Treasury to do so. Secondly, he stated,
	"the proposal does nothing to overcome the problem of the time-consuming negotiations that are currently necessary",
	for the Comptroller and Auditor General to obtain access to particular areas where government money is being spent. Thirdly, he said,
	"the provision will also place the CAG's access powers in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation".
	Only a moment ago the Minister stressed that this whole matter is fundamental to the control of Parliament over the executive, as it has been down the centuries. It is not appropriate that it should be dealt with in secondary legislation. Finally, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said,
	"the effect of the order-making power is to add to the hotch-potch of arrangements referred to in the Committee's ninth report. It is not a global solution and will allow current anomalies to be handled only on a piecemeal basis".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 836.]
	For those reasons I do not believe that it would be right for your Lordships to accept the amendments that the Government have put forward. The Minister says that this is an attempt to meet the points made, but in the debates in another place to which I have just referred those amendments were described as retrograde, not progressive. That is an important point.
	Throughout the passage of this Bill we have had a problem in as much as the Minister has sought to stress that the issues that we raise somehow do not relate to the Bill. Clearly, they are within the Long Title. As such an event occurs only three times in 150 years, clearly it is right that we should be able to raise these matters on this Bill.
	The Minister has been too concerned to restrict our debates to the narrow issues, although again, as pointed out in another place, the Bill in its original form covers a number of points concerned with auditing and so on. It is also true that the Bill covers the proposals in regard to resource accounting that we on these Benches, and I believe throughout Parliament, have welcomed, although in another place it has been suggested that a Bill of three clauses would have been sufficient to achieve that objective.
	My point is illustrated by the remarks made by the Minister at Third Reading. In speaking to the amendments and the matter of access and he said:
	"Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General himself admitted that in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Opposition have responded in the most extraordinary way: by removing the requirement that the clause should apply to departmental accounts, which is what is meant in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5".--[Official Report, 12/7/00; col. 249.]
	That is not what was meant by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. He said what was meant by those amendments in another passage of his speech. A number of people came up to me after the Division was called saying, "Is it really true that this does what the Minister said; that by removing the requirement the clause would apply to departmental accounts?" He should have said, "We remove the requirement that it applies only to departmental accounts". I do not suggest that the Minister intended to mislead the House at Third Reading, but in reality we sought to widen the scope to include these measures that are clearly of great concern to Members of another place. He pointed out that the debate in another place was rather one-sided. Apart from the Minister's speeches, no one spoke in favour of the line that the Government took on the amendments.
	We have been over the ground a number of times in previous debates and I shall not weary the House by going over it again. But in relation to the right of access, which is what is at issue here, the Government are saying that the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right to roam. That point was clearly dealt with in the debate in another place. On the one hand it was argued--it is certainly the case--that the extent to which the National Audit Office is likely to roam in some irresponsible way is gravely limited by its resources, which are not as great as they might be. Having been chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which determines those resources, I can say that that is certainly so. Certainly the intrusion, which was made much of in the Minister's speech in the other place, is not likely to be on any scale.
	In any event, in terms of this amendment, the National Audit Office would have to operate within the same constraints of intrusion which the Government themselves exercise. The same regulations and code of practice will apply equally. So we on this side do not believe that there will be the kind of dangers in our Amendment No. 7C, which we are suggesting should be reinstated, as the Government argue. Moreover, the Comptroller and Auditor General should not need to negotiate with those who spend public money and whose affairs he feels he ought to examine; that is not something that the representative of Parliament ought to have to do. He ought to have the right. As Mr Sheldon--the former chairman of the PAC and now the chairman of the Liaison Committee in another place--said, we want to go back to the situation of the 1866 Act which, "covered the lot", as he expressed it. The reality is that, at the moment, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General do not cover the lot in terms of public expenditure.
	I make just one further brief point. We welcome the Sharman committee. But this is a tremendously wasted opportunity. If the Government felt that these matters needed to be examined, then clearly the Sharman committee or its equivalent should have been set up in time for its recommendations to be incorporated in this Bill. We know it is extremely rare for a Bill of this kind to come before us.
	We are glad to hear that the Sharman committee met this afternoon. We still have no explanation from the Minister as to what the relationship is between that group and the so-called steering group. The Minister merely says it is a steering group which has been set up with a very distinguished membership. But as to exactly how the two interact, I fear we remain very much in the dark. However, we shall await their reports in due course. To say that all the recommendations can be implemented by secondary legislation rather anticipates what the committee may say. It may be that they require primary legislation. At all events, it is likely to be some time before we make any progress on that. Meanwhile, we should pursue this matter and the other place should have an opportunity to consider it further.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks to reject the Government's amendment put forward in the Commons and to reinstate Lords Amendment No. 7. From these Benches we wholly support that proposal.
	Our reasons for rejecting the Government's amendment are as follows. First, far from it being simply an issue of accountability, it is a fairly precise amendment and the issue about which we are concerned is access. The main purpose of the series of amendments tabled at Third Reading by the Opposition was to give the Comptroller and Auditor General rights of access to documentation that he needed to fulfil his responsibilities as auditor of public moneys. At present he is frustrated in that function by the fact that he has to negotiate with departments and, through them, with non-departmental public bodies in order to obtain the documentation.
	That is time-consuming and costly in terms both of personnel and frustration of personnel when they find it difficult to obtain the documentation they need. It was to prevent those costs and those frustrations that it was proposed throughout the discussions on the Bill in the other place and in this House that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be given reasonable rights of access directly to those documents he needed and amendments were tabled to that effect.
	Admittedly, the government amendment removes departments as gatekeepers, as they have been to date. The amendment put forward by the Government in the other place puts the Treasury in place of the department as gatekeeper. The Treasury is, arguably, a more formidable gatekeeper than departments. Indeed it suggests that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have to go cap in hand to the Treasury every time he has difficulty in gaining the access he needs. Far from having the right of access, as was proposed in the original amendment, instead it proposes that the Treasury shall have the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General can or cannot have access.
	That is one reason we reject this amendment. Secondly, the provision does nothing to overcome the problem of the time-consuming and frustrating negotiations that are necessary to secure access. Indeed, in making the whole arrangement subject to affirmative resolution via secondary legislation, in many ways it makes the procedures yet more cumbersome and more difficult to handle.
	Thirdly, the provision does nothing to simplify the procedures. The proposal in the original amendment was far simpler; that is, it gave the Comptroller and Auditor General the right to have access to the documents that he needed. As I say, the amendment does nothing to simplify that, which a right of access in primary legislation would ensure and which we would like to see. It is yet another item of piecemeal legislation which merely adds to the hotchpotch of arrangements in this area referred to by the Public Accounts Committee in its 9th Report of 1999-2000.
	By contrast, the original amendment tabled by the Opposition at Third Reading was clear and straightforward. It is not, as was claimed by the Government in the other place, an unconstrained right to roam. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned this. It states clearly that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the right to apply only for documents,
	"held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or ... which are documents to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access".
	In other words, the National Audit Office has to follow the access guidelines that the Government themselves follow. It is not a wholesale right to roam.
	We come back time and again to the fundamental purpose of this amendment. In that sense the Minister is right that it is broadly about accountability in terms of the relationship between Parliament and its officers and their right properly to fulfil the functions set out under the 1866 Exchequer and Audit Departments Act; that is, to regulate the receipt, custody and issue of public moneys and provide the audit thereof.
	In the other place a Labour Member, Mr Alan Williams, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said,
	"At the heart of the matter--and we must constantly return to it--is whether we have a parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability. Access is fundamental to that--on all Government expenditure and income. If Parliament does not have that access, it cannot exercise propose control over the Executive".
	Further, he said,
	"It is effrontery for the Executive to tell Parliament that we should not have the right to inspect them. For those who are being monitored to say what can be monitored would be mildly comical if we saw it in a Whitehall farce--yet that is what is being proposed".--(Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 842.)
	As has been made clear from the outset of our discussions in this House on the Bill, the purpose of these amendments is to gain access in order to fulfil those tasks of audit. This is the fourth set of amendments that has been proposed covering the issue. Time and again, those proposing these amendments--the issue received cross-party support from members of the PAC in the other place--have tried to meet the objections raised by the Treasury in terms of limiting the scope and trying to define "non-departmental public bodies".
	Time and again the Treasury has raised new objections. Initially, we had the argument that the Bill is not about audit. Then the impossibility of defining "non-departmental public bodies" was put forward, followed by the issue of the extra red tape and the regulations involved. There have also been many references to the Sharman report. Those arguments are not directly relevant to the issue of access. None of that detracts from the fundamental purpose of the original set of amendments--namely, to reinforce Parliament's control over public moneys--or from the Treasury's purpose, which is to frustrate that objective.
	I shall quote again from the debate that took place in the other place. This time I refer to the words of Mr David Davis, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said:
	"We should not assume that the Treasury would permit these rights automatically. Time and again, even in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, the Treasury has argued that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not have access to private bodies. That happened in connection with housing associations, which are now known as registered social landlords. It will happen again in connection with the PFI companies that will deliver public services in the coming years".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 837.]
	The amendment passed by the House of Commons is nothing but a move in the same direction. Indeed, as indicated, it concentrates discretion in the hands of the Treasury and makes the Comptroller and Auditor General subject to Treasury decisions and subordinate legislation. I should like to offer the House one final quotation. This one comes from Mr Sheldon, a previous chairman of the PAC, who said:
	"Access by the CAG should be the result of a right, and not involve permission. He should not have to seek the permission of the people whom he is auditing; he should have an unqualified right of access--I should not have to ask for that".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 845.]
	In many respects, this is a minor issue; but it is a minor issue about a fundamental principle. It is about the powers of Parliament vis-a-vis the executive. From these Benches, as I said previously, we believe that the power of the executive has grown too strong over the years and that, where there is an opportunity to reverse that tendency, we should pursue it. We therefore support the Opposition in their Amendment No. 7 and urge the House to reject Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B, which have been put forward by the Government.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long, but I feel that I ought to intervene at this point to express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I was greatly influenced by the debate that took place in the other place. When we discussed this matter on Third Reading, I was not totally convinced on the strength of the argument that was then advanced. Indeed, the Minister made a rather strong case against the amendment on that occasion--rather stronger than that made by the Economic Secretary in another place.
	However, having had an opportunity to read the report of the debate that was referred to by my noble friend, it seems to me that the quality of the debate in the other place last Monday indicates the importance of this matter. It was quite extraordinary to see such support from all parts of another place. Although this is not the greatest of matters, that support seems to indicate that it is an important parliamentary matter.
	When he introduced the debate, the Minister referred to the concurrent interests that exist at some stages. Of course there are such interests; but there are other occasions--and this is one of them--when there is inevitably a difference of view between the executive and the legislature. The views expressed in that one-sided debate on Monday night in another place indicate why it is important for us to carry the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this evening.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise to reinforce briefly the points just made. I completely agree with the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. My comments will be short because many of the points contained in my notes are identical to what both speakers have said.
	The amendments originally made by your Lordships' House served to strengthen and protect the position of Parliament in relation to the executive. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that there is a fundamental point at issue; indeed, it is actually an important constitutional point. I appreciate that the Government won the vote in the other place, but they very clearly lost the argument. The Minister has conceded that fact to some extent. Indeed, not one Labour Back-Bencher spoke in support of the Government's position. If one reads the report of the debate, it is quite clear that the Government do not have the support of the chairman of the PAC or of his immediately predecessor, Robert Sheldon, who was a very distinguished Labour member of that committee. Indeed, he abstained in the vote that took place. Moreover, as I understand it, the Government do not have the support of the current members of the PAC.
	The arguments for the House to pass the noble Lord's amendment are compelling. I believe that the order-making powers proposed by the Government are inadequate. My noble friend Lord Higgins has put on record the comments made in the other place by David Davis, the current chairman of the PAC. Indeed, my noble friend outlined the four points that were made at that time. The first of the latter is especially important; namely, that the power to be given under the Government's proposals will provide the Treasury with the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General may have access. That is an extremely important point.
	The Government's proposed amendments would leave Parliament's ability to engage in proper scrutiny to the discretion of the government of the day. That cannot be right. We need to protect the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The noble Baroness talked about the latter fulfilling his responsibility, but I believe that she could have referred to his "fulfilling his responsibility as an Officer of Parliament". That is a fundamental point.
	Mention has also been made of the fact that the Lords amendments would not create a "general right of access", as was claimed in the Treasury's memorandum: they are limited to the issue of government access. That is quite clear from the amendment. The further point was made in another place that they are also limited in practical terms because of the limited resources of the NAO, which cannot, therefore, go on a general roaming exercise. The point about the review team under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has already been addressed. However, the Sharman review cannot deliver the necessary statutory vehicle to entrench Parliament's rights. It is extremely important to bear that in mind.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, quoted from Alan Williams, who is a Labour member of the PAC. As she indicated, his words were very powerful and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I shall merely conclude with the final words of Alan Williams in that debate:
	"I merely want to record that this is far more than a debate about auditing, it is about the power of Parliament against the Executive. In this Bill, the Executive is winning".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 844.]
	I do not want the executive to win; I want Parliament to win.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have again the difficulty that I have experienced on many previous occasions of choosing between addressing the amendment or the arguments that have been put forward in the debate. The arguments put forward in this debate bear no relation to the amendment now before the House. Those arguments reflect what I previously described: when we attempt to respond to the game of ping-pong that we are playing, the other side abandons the table and goes to another table next door.
	When a clutch of amendments was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on Third Reading in this House, I addressed them. I did so seriously and one by one. I drew attention to the fact that they would broaden the definition. If there was a slip of the tongue that allowed the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to think that I meant that they did not cover departmental accounts, that was a mistake. I made quite clear what I meant: they would broaden the definition to cover all of the activities of the National Audit Office. I addressed that. Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, addressed that. No one addressed it. However, I addressed the amendments before us.
	Now we have a single amendment which does not constitute the range of amendments which the House of Commons debated. The House of Commons debated the amendments which I addressed and which were not addressed by their proponents in this House. The thrust of the debate in the House of Commons, which was a high quality debate, did not concern the amendment before us today; it concerned fundamentally Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It concerned the amendments which raise the general issue of accountability for all public expenditure, not just departmental accounts. As I say, it was a good debate. But what did the speakers in that debate talk about? What did Mr David Davis choose to talk about? He talked about the fraud in the Focus Housing Association. That would not be covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which is before us today. Fine speeches were made about the role of Parliament, which must be addressed. I have argued that they do not have to be addressed in the Bill; but they are certainly not addressed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, today.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the problem with the Focus Housing Association was that the Comptroller and Auditor General had not been able to gain access to its documentation. Difficulties in obtaining access to that documentation were discussed. It seems to me that the amendment we are considering concerns this whole issue of access to documentation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but it does not. These are not documents to which, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, a department has or can obtain access to. This is a much wider issue. It is a proper issue and one which deserves to be addressed. However, it is not addressed by Amendment No. 7C.
	That applies to many of the comments made in the course of the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, both referred to the speech of Mr David Davis. In that fine speech Mr Davis talked of the time-consuming and embarrassing need for an inquiry to simplify proceedings. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, went so far as to say that the Treasury would require the NAO to go cap in hand every time the latter wanted access to accounts. However, that is not what Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B achieve. They provide that Sharman recommendations on access to anything related to public expenditure can be implemented by secondary legislation. They are not to be used on an ad hoc basis as required. That is made clear by the fact that orders are to be made only by affirmative resolution.
	It is intended that we shall have the ability to implement Sharman recommendations on access to any issue of public expenditure without the need to wait for primary legislation. That is what the amendment is about. It is not a retrograde amendment but one which pursues the line of recognition--I nearly said conciliation, but it is not conciliation--of the force of the arguments. That has been the line we have taken throughout the debate.
	I have attempted again to address the amendment before us. I respect the speeches made by those on the Front Benches and by the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Norton. However, they are still speeches addressing the amendments that went to the Commons and not speeches about the amendment before us tonight. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 7C.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

6 Clause 8, page 5, line 6, leave out ("of the documents relating to the department's accounts" and insert (relevant documents")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	6A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

7 Clause 8, page 5, line 12, leave out from ("documents") to end of line 16 and insert("-
	(a) which are held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or
	(b) which are documents to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access.") The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof--
	7A Page 12, line 20, at end insert ("and")
	7B Page 12, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert--
	("(8) The Treasury may by order provide for section 8(1) to apply in relation to documents (in addition to those specified in section 8(2))--
	(a) of a specified description, or
	(b) which are held or controlled either by a body of a specified kind or in specified circumstances.
	(9) An order under subsection (8) may apply in respect of the examination of the accounts of a particular department or body or in respect of examinations under section 8(1) generally.
	(10) An order under subsection (6) or (8)--
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,
	(b) shall not be made unless the Treasury have consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General, and
	(c) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS

LORDS AMENDMENT

Lord Higgins: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof, to leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 7".

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 7C.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof, to leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 7"

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7C) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 137.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The Question is that this House does not insist on its Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

8 Clause 8, page 5 line 21, at end insert--
	("(4) The rights of access conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercisable in relation to any document relating primarily to accounts which--
	(a) are subject to audit by the Auditor General for Scotland or the Auditor General for Wales, and are not also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, or
	(b) are subject to audit under section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 or section 97 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and do not relate to a body specified in section 98(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977.
	(5) In this section "relevant non-departmental public body" means a non-departmental public body which is one for which the department whose accounts are undergoing examination is responsible; and for this purpose "non-departmental public body" means a body--
	(a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department,
	(b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and
	(c) an officer of which has been designated by a government department as its accounting officer in respect of the preparation of its accounts.")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	8A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a slightly unusual invitation to offer the Government. It is not unexpected because I have given them notice. My invitation is that they should adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. My reason for doing so, quite simply, is that I tabled three amendments of some importance which were moved at about 10.30 p.m. last night. After the Minister had conceded that he would be able to give me additional information if I tabled my amendments today, I withdrew last night's amendments on the express ground that there was an understanding that I would be able to bring forward these matters without objection on Third Reading.
	In regard to one of the items on which he could not at that time help, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said,
	"I undertake to look further at the point. Again, if the noble and learned Lord tables these amendments tomorrow"--
	that is today--
	"we will endeavour to respond to this point".--[Official Report, 25/7/00; col. 394.].
	On that basis, as soon as the Public Bill Office opened I asked for my amendment to be put down again, with a significant alteration--an alteration designed to persuade the noble Lord that what I was asking for was nothing like as strenuous as he thought. I then learned for the first time that because of Standing Order No. 48, and I quote:
	"No amendment, other than a privilege amendment, shall be moved upon the Third Reading of a public Bill unless notice of the amendment has been given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the amendment is to be moved, in sufficient time to enable the amendment to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is to be moved".
	I understand that the Public Bill Office let it be known yesterday that it normally closed the list at 6 p.m. but on yesterday's occasion they would be more flexible. That did not sound as if at 10.30 it was going to be possible, and in any event I wished to think again about the amendment to see whether I could reduce the extent of my demands, which the noble Lord, with characteristic courtesy, had suggested might be thought to be excessive.
	The Public Bill Office was, unbeknown to me, still available to take minutes through the devotion to duty of their Principal Clerk up until midnight, I believe. But no one had pointed that out and no one had suggested it, either to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. We were both under the impression, or at least I was, that in this super-fast-track Bill time limits had been waived: otherwise there would be absurdities. It would mean that if the Bill had gone on, as it nearly did, beyond midnight there would be no prospect of putting any amendments down in respect of that material--

Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is not quite correct on that last point because the parliamentary day does not end until the business of that day is completed. So even if that stage of the Bill had continued until 2 o'clock in the morning that was still the day on which it started. The Public Bill Office was open until after midnight, and a phone call there would have provided the answer.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was not a phone call that the noble Lord the Minister thought was necessary: otherwise he would not have said to me that he would look further at a particular point if I tabled my amendments tomorrow. He said that at col. 394 of Hansard. However, I am grateful for the Chief Whip's intervention. I always learn something from him whenever he stands up, sometimes to my benefit and sometimes not.
	I was about to stress to your Lordships the importance of the amendment. When a number of us attended a meeting which the Home Secretary called about a week ago, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, raised a point about the sunset clause. I raised the point which is covered by my amendments. Quite simply, it is this: that if notices were to be served by the police based upon their suspicions or based upon their belief, it was then right that the respondent to those notices should be given proper details as to the basis of the belief or the suspicions alleged.
	The Government had stressed that these were in the nature of civil proceedings, and it is established procedure in civil proceedings that if you make an unparticularised allegation you have to face up to a request for further and better particulars. Take the simplest of cases: if the rather incompetent draftsman had entered particulars of claim or a statement of claim alleging that a driver was negligent, full stop, and if as a result of that negligence the plaintiff had suffered damage, he would immediately be required to provide further and better particulars of the alleged negligence, stating the facts of the matters relied upon in support of that allegation. In other words, was the negligence in driving too fast, not staying awake, driving on the wrong side of the road or whatever it was?
	Many of your Lordships have taken the view that these proceedings were wrongly called civil when they were criminal proceedings, or certainly more of a criminal kind than civil. In the criminal code it is a basic and fundamental rule of natural justice that you must be provided with full particulars of any allegation which the prosecution is relying upon. In both fields, civil and criminal, that is because it is only just that you should know what is the case you are required to meet.
	The result of my making this type of observation at the meeting was held as an important contribution, and the two contributions which were in fact looked upon as being of significance were the sunset clause and my clause in regard to notice. On Second Reading, the noble Lord the Minister in his winding-up speech said:
	"The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a number of helpful detailed points about drafting, particularly on new Sections 21A and 21B. We are of course going to pay very close attention to his advice, and I should like to place on record our thanks to him for the advice and encouragement that he gave us during the open session".--[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1258.]
	The Bill itself had recognised the point that I had made by providing in new Section 21A, which is concerned with summary detention, that the police officer who had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder and had reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches would be required to give his reasons for detaining him in writing. These reasons, quite simply, could be the grounds he had for suspecting and his belief. I accordingly requested that it should be an obligation to provide full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon in support of his suspicion for belief. I did likewise under new Section 21B.
	I asked the Minister specifically if he could tell me what he envisaged would be covered by the reasons. He was unable to do so, but offered to make inquiries and provide that information today. The same applied to the grounds under new Section 21B. He said that guidance would be provided. He was unable to tell us what the guidance would be but promised that it would be provided tomorrow--today that is. This important matter of informing a respondent of the nature of the case that he has to meet under this very strange legislation, with allegations of suspicion and belief being the foundation of the police's case, just does not exist at the moment. It will not exist unless the Minister is prepared to adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. By that time I shall be able to comply with the requirements of standing orders. It cannot do the Government any harm because many noble Lords thought that was the result of yesterday's successful amendment on this very subject.
	On the other hand, if the Government adhere to today's proceedings, there will be an unfair result in a Bill which is replete with possibilities of further unfairness.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, the House was quite clear in its wish yesterday. It wished the Bill to be organised so that we could debate Report stage and Third Reading on separate days. The Chief Whip therefore made arrangements for amendments to be accepted until midnight. He did not tell any of us. He certainly did not tell me. He did not tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. None of us knew about that.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I did not make arrangements. That was a matter entirely for the Public Bill Office.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, none of us knew that. All we knew was the standard procedure. I am not at all surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was misled by the remarks of the Minister into thinking that the Public Bill Office was--as would usually be the case--closed and would be open for business the following morning.
	In the Motion which we successfully amended yesterday, the Government asked for standing orders to be set aside for the purpose of taking the remaining stages on one day. The right procedure for the usual channels to have followed was to give us that same width--to have allowed standing orders to be set aside so that amendments could be made when noble Lords were fresh and awake and had had a chance to look at Hansard and consider the previous day's proceedings. Standing orders are for the convenience of the House. If we are to take two stages of a Bill on successive days, we must have arrangements that allow those noble Lords who come in in the morning and read Hansard to put down amendments for consideration at Third Reading on the second day. It is not right that we should be prohibited from so doing. If the Government wish for their convenience to have the two stages of the Bill taken on consecutive days, they must suspend the standing orders that prevent noble Lords putting down amendments to that second stage.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I understood--of course one has to accept it, one is never there--that the usual channels made a deal. That deal was, as I understand it, that the Bill would pass by Friday. That was the deal; that it would pass in that way. That pre-empted of course the functions of this House. But let that pre-emption go for a moment. The deal that was made has pre-empted in this manner. It has worked with manifest unfairness to the noble and learned Lord, and in relation to a very important aspect of the Bill--whether particulars are given on the criminal side or the civil side. Of course without them there is inevitable injustice. The House is indebted to the noble and learned Lord on this occasion for having drawn the attention of the House to that matter.
	I respectfully suggest that the deal can be kept if Third Reading is dealt with on Friday. The noble and learned Lord can put down his amendment and anyone else can put down an amendment. Noble Lords may wish to do so. We have been pre-empted twice. Talk about double jeopardy; there is a good example of it.

Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps it would help the House if I said a few words. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are aware, the standing order says that manuscript amendments cannot be tabled for Third Reading. In other words, they cannot be tabled on the morning of the debate. It is true that my noble friend the Minister said, with a slip of the tongue, that they could be tabled tomorrow. We should all know the standing order; it is quite clear. So any noble Lord who wished to table amendments for Third Reading had only to ask the Public Bill Office, "What is the arrangement because I wish to table an amendment for Third Reading?" He would have been told that the Public Bill Office would stay open until the House adjourned, which it did.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Chief Whip in other situations, but what he has just said is an outrage. Yesterday the Minister--that it was a slip of the tongue has only now been admitted--nevertheless advised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that he could table his amendments "tomorrow". Tomorrow is today.
	My noble friend Lord Renton suggested a compromise which, sadly, was not accepted the other day when we had a similar debate. I should like to suggest one now. The House has co-operated to this point to allow the Government to have their Bill before the House rises on Friday. All the normal intervals between the different stages of the Bill have, by agreement, collapsed. It would make eminent sense also to make an adjustment to the rules which pertain to a Bill when the normal intervals are not observed. If that is the case, the Minister--having now accepted that it was a slip of the tongue when giving advice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner--should accept that there should be a short interval and that manuscript amendments should be accepted, especially as the House knows about those amendments. They were referred to yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed to bring information to the House today in response to those amendments. If he does not accede to this request, I hope that the House itself, as indeed it did the other day, will take a view on the matter.

Lord Richard: My Lords, yesterday we had a debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Noble Lords expressed their views with varying degrees of certainty and enthusiasm. We came to a certain conclusion. I am bound to say that I found the decision somewhat confusing. But it was afterwards clarified that we would have the Report stage yesterday and we would have the Third Reading today. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway--that was the deal that was come to in the usual channels after the vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, yesterday afternoon. If that is the deal, I can suggest only that the House should stick to it.
	I find the two propositions really quite extraordinary. The one just advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was that if a Minister expresses a view on a matter of procedure, that somehow or other overrides the provisions in the standing orders and therefore that entitles the House in those circumstances to pretend that the standing order is in a different form from that which it is in. I find that an astonishing proposition.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, in answer to that point, does the noble Lord agree that, if the Government give an undertaking in the House through a Minister, that entitles the Government to postpone a stage of a Bill?

Lord Richard: My Lords, I am talking about the procedures. Everyone knows what the procedures are on Third Reading. Everyone knows that, under standing orders, one cannot put down a manuscript amendment at Third Reading. The fact that a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and gives an opinion that is contrary to the standing orders cannot bind the Government; nor indeed can it conceivably bind the House.
	The second proposition I find a little strange is that advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I had the experience of appearing before the noble and learned Lord when he sat as a judge. If I had stood up in front of the noble and learned Lord and said, "I am terribly sorry. I thought that the procedure was different from that which it is. Please will you now allow me to tear up the rules of procedure and pretend that they are otherwise than the white book suggests?", I do not think that the noble and learned Lord would have given me a very good hearing.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, with respect, I have not made that suggestion. I have accepted the error and have merely suggested that, in all fairness, the Government should agree to adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. There are very few amendments to be considered today. They are all government amendments. There is no hardship in putting Third Reading over until tomorrow. That is what the Government should do. I have not suggested that the concession made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has changed anything except the merits of the case and the strength of my submission that, in all fairness, the Government should do what I have suggested.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, yesterday we had a long debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It was said by noble Lords on all sides that we are masters of our own procedures. We voted to overturn the agreement which had been reached by the usual channels precisely and only to allow a reasonable interval between Report and Third Reading. The arrangements that we are being told have been agreed between the two Front Benches prevent the substance of the vote yesterday being implemented. Frankly, if it is impossible for Members of the House to table amendments to be debated at Third Reading, then yesterday's vote was a totally nugatory exercise.
	The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Only three amendments have been tabled for Third Reading. They are all government amendments. We should look to the substance of this matter and not become bogged down in, if I dare say it, the bogus technicalities raised by some noble Lords. The substance is that we had a long and earnest debate about the way in which the Bill has been proceeded with. It would be a total farce if we were now to proceed to Third Reading without a single amendment from any opposition party.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in reaching a decision on this matter, the Government and indeed the Opposition Front Bench should bear in mind that this is a most unusual Bill. If we do not get the provisions right, injustice could occur, for which the Government and others would never be forgiven. It would be so easy for us to make a further attempt to get it right in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Instead of pursuing the Third Reading now, we should adjourn it until the first item after Questions tomorrow. We could deal with the few amendments that there are--they will be mostly government and formal amendments--and present them to Members of another place first thing on Friday. They could either agree with them or send them back to us, and we would not then try to pursue the matter further.
	The choice is this: do we stick rigorously to our rules of procedure and the decision of the usual channels, or do we try to get the Bill right, in order to avoid future injustice, by doing what has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and other noble Lords, and deal with Third Reading tomorrow?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Bill is full of some fairly unhappy precedents. That is why it is having a sticky time in this House. It would be a great pity if we added a new precedent. We all know that Ministers frequently make slips of the tongue. There is nothing unusual in that. If a Minister comes back to the House and says that he or she has made a slip of the tongue, that is well understood and no one feels too hard about it. That is what has always happened in the past. However, if a Minister says that it was a slip of the tongue when he gave an undertaking and therefore the undertaking, on which others have relied, is to be washed away, that would indeed be an unhappy precedent to set.
	I simply cannot see why the Government should be so obstinate. As noble Lords have said, the Third Reading could be taken tomorrow without any great problem. The agreement entered into by the usual channels could be maintained. I must say that I am not bound by agreements entered into by the usual channels. I am no part of the usual channels and I am not consulted. Most of us are in that position. None the less, where we can, we like to go along with what is agreed for the expeditious conduct of business in the House. However, there is no reason why the agreement that the Bill should be delivered on Friday should not be honoured. We can discuss the Bill tomorrow. Why on earth should we not do so?

Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I think that the House is getting on to dangerous ground on two or three points. First, it is true that the usual channels are the servants of the House and its Members. It is equally true that the freedoms of all individual Members of the House are protected by our standing orders. Therefore, if we are to protect our own rights, we need to be careful about how we approach sudden changes in terms of standing orders. In fact, if we wish to change standing orders, the proper way of doing so is through consideration by the Procedure Committee and agreement to any recommendations by the House.
	The usual channels are the servants of the House. We could not work in the smooth, business-like way which allows our independence as individuals to be maintained without the usual channels negotiating arrangements for business. Therefore, if the usual channels entered into an arrangement based on the broad picture, it would be an undermining of our procedures and of our confidence in our arrangements if that agreement was overturned, as it was.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord must have been away from the House for a while. Had we stuck to the intervals prescribed for public business, we would not have attempted to go through Committee, Report and Third Reading on the same day.

Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord is not listening. I said that the House agreed to suspension of the standing orders as they relate to the timing of this Bill. We are therefore acting within the standing orders.

Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. This is the second time in three days that we have held this kind of discussion. The House works by agreement and by co-operation, as a result of discussions between the Front Benches and through the usual channels. I can confirm that there has been no breach of standing orders.
	Noble Lords will recall a point I made in our debate yesterday when the House decided that a split should be introduced between Report stage and Third Reading: I immediately made arrangements to hold the Third Reading today. However, I pointed out that the arrangements for the Bill had been agreed. In fact, the days on which we had the Second Reading and were to have had the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading were days suggested by the Official Opposition, to which I agreed. Nothing was said until the debate yesterday in which the House decided to introduce a split between Report and Third Reading. That was because the Committee sat until 10 past five o'clock of that morning.
	The omission of one word in my noble friend's response has caused the problem we are now discussing. If my noble friend had said, "If the noble Lord tables his amendments for tomorrow", there would have been no problem. Noble Lords know well the rules of this House. Many noble Lords present in the Chamber have been involved with this Bill. Noble Lords know that manuscript amendments cannot be tabled at Third Reading. Surely anyone who wished to table an amendment at Third Reading should have asked me or, still better, inquired at the Public Bill Office or sought the advice of the Clerks and authorities of the House. Noble Lords could have asked what needed to be done to table an amendment at Third Reading. Noble Lords would have been told of arrangements made by the Public Bill Office--not by me--to meet that eventuality. Those arrangements were in place. The fact that noble Lords did not attempt to avail themselves of that information is not my problem.
	If, every other day, we are to have a debate in which the House seeks to take issue with agreements that have been made between our old friends "the usual channels"--who aim to ensure that the business of this House proceeds in an orderly manner--it will be very difficult for the House to retain its reputation for upholding the agreement and co-operation usually demonstrated on all sides.
	I have discussed the problem of adjourning Third Reading with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. My noble friend has ensured that a full reply on all the points that have been raised is ready to be given to the noble and learned Lord.
	I suggest to noble Lords that it would be better if we now continued with Third Reading, as tabled, and proceed with the Bill which must go back tonight to the Commons to fit in with the timetable there. That is in case, for a variety of reasons, it needs to be returned to this place.
	I stress again that there has been no breach of standing orders. However, there has been a failure on the part of noble Lords themselves to check what they should have done if they had wanted to table amendments at Third Reading.

Lord McNally: My Lords, explanations and justifications are going to dig us deeper into this hole. Can the noble Lord the Chief Whip answer one point? Lords amendments are amendable in another place. Would it be possible, perhaps with the co-operation of the Government, to arrange for the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be tabled in another place and debated there?

Lord Carter: My Lords, that could take place only if an amendment were consequential on an amendment that had been made in this place. That is the difficulty.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip, having decided to take the Bill today, must have appreciated--certainly if he heard the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam--that people were not going to put down their amendments in time. It was open to him to move that the standing order be suspended to enable the amendments to be tabled today. Is not the right answer at this point to move that the amendments, although now suspended, be tabled and for the Bill to be taken later today--if the noble Lord is so keen to complete it today? That would allow a little time for the amendments to be put down.
	It would be perfectly easy for the noble Lord himself to suspend the standing order. He moved to suspend the standing order yesterday in an attempt to get the Bill passed in one day. Surely he could move a lesser Motion to suspend this standing order and thus enable the amendment to be tabled.

Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Viscount. The reason why we were able to hold yesterday's debate on the suspension of standing orders was because a Motion had been put down on the Order Paper.
	Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of Standing Order No. 87:
	"No Motion shall be granted for making any new Standing Order, or for dispensing with a Standing Order of the House, unless the notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said Motion".
	It is quite clear that we cannot now move a Motion to suspend standing orders. It should have been tabled last night so that it could have appeared on the Order Paper for today.
	Although I appreciate that noble Lords feel strongly about this matter, I suggest that we should now get on with our business. I repeat, there has been no breach of standing orders. Immediately after Tuesday's debate, I met with the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. We agreed to leave a day between Report and Third Reading and to take Third Reading today. Everyone agreed with that. No complaints were made when it was clear that Third Reading was put down on the Order Paper for today.
	I repeat: it is not my responsibility to ensure that noble Lords check on the procedures. All noble Lords know and understand the procedures as regards manuscript amendments. There are plenty of lawyers in this House. Why did no one think to ask me, the Clerks or the Public Bill Office about the procedure covering amendments to be tabled at Third Reading? I think that noble Lords forgot to do this and now they are making a meal of their own forgetfulness.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may make two very brief points. My action yesterday had two purposes. The first was to point out the undesirability of omitting the normal intervals, a point which I suspect has been underlined by our discussions this afternoon.
	My second point, which I made specifically, was,
	"It is also clear that, under Standing Order 48 it would not be possible for any amendments to be tabled for Third Reading. That could be a serious handicap in terms of our wish to improve the Bill".--[Official Report, 25/7/00; col. 284.]
	That is the central point here. Surely what we are really discussing is not a point of procedure, but the need to improve the Bill.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this episode has vividly demonstrated the difficulty and danger of legislating at the high speed we have been trying to achieve over the past few days.
	The point raised by the noble and learned Lord--"affecting natural justice"--was raised initially at the meeting with the Home Secretary to consider the draft Bill. The Government responded to that in the Bill. It was again raised by the noble and learned Lord in the debate on Second Reading held only last Thursday, although for some of us that already seems like a long time ago. It came up again in Committee--at 4.30 on Tuesday morning, but still in Monday's sitting. It was then discussed in the understandable absence of the noble and learned Lord. A response of a sort was given. We returned to the matter again on Report--at half past 10 last night. It was at that point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made his remark about amendments to be tabled tomorrow.
	Those noble Lords who have been present for all the stages of this Bill can well accept that the noble Lord might easily have made a slip. It was 10.30 at night; all noble Lords had been up until gone five o'clock that morning; what is more, we had been debating the Bill since directly after Questions yesterday, on top of the previous day's sitting. So we can all accept that the noble Lord made a mistake at that point. But the fact remains that we have got into this difficulty.
	My noble friend Lord Lucas made a good suggestion which should be considered by the Procedure Committee; namely, that should these circumstances be repeated in the future and Standing Order No. 48 is suspended so that two stages, in this case Report and Third Reading, can be taken on the same day, the standing order preventing manuscript amendments being taken at Third Reading should also be suspended. I believe that the Procedure Committee should look into that.
	There is a point worth making about the usual intervals between stages of legislation. There are two types of interval in our procedures. There is the standing order which it was proposed yesterday should be suspended, but was not, stating that we cannot take two stages of a Bill in the same day. But in the Companion there is also a less binding requirement that there should be two weekends between this, a fortnight between that, and so on--the conventional longer intervals. These, of course, have been drastically suspended for this Bill, and we have been considering the Bill day by day without suspending the standing order, merely breaking the convention laid down in the Companion. But it was also proposed that we should go further and suspend the standing order as well, and the House rejected that yesterday. The question is what we should do now, having arrived at this position.
	It seems to me that the first thing that should happen is that in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should do his best to answer the points raised by the noble and learned Lord and attempt to reassure him about the way in which they will be dealt with more fully than he was able to do at half past ten last night. Then we can decide whether to proceed with the Third Reading and the government amendments that have been tabled.
	One of the fortunate consequences of the House carrying the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford yesterday is that the Government have had some further thoughts and, being more understanding of the procedures than some of us, have managed to get their amendments under the wire for consideration today, which they would otherwise have been prevented from doing. So if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will now do his best to reassure the noble and learned Lord, we may be able to make progress.

Lord Carter: My Lords, before my noble friend does so, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We did suspend standing orders yesterday to take all stages of the Finance Bill in one day. It is not uncommon for the intervals between stages to be collapsed. We have dealt with emergency and other important legislation. I shall not go into all the arguments as to why the Government feel that this legislation must be on the statute book before we rise for the Summer Recess. As noble Lords know, there is a game in Germany next week which could be affected. We can bring this matter before the Procedure Committee, and I undertake to make sure that, on any future occasion when it is proposed that we should take the Report stage and Third Reading on successive days, everyone is made aware of what is happening.
	The noble Lord rather gave the game away. He said that some of us were a bit forgetful of procedures or were not too sure about the procedures. I think that that is what has happened. I am afraid that your Lordships have slightly overlooked the procedures of the House in this case. I undertake to make sure that arrangements are made so that when Report and Third Reading are taken on successive days everyone knows the arrangements for tabling amendments for Third Reading.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, just said. At its next meeting the Procedure Committee should examine all the issues involved over the past few days. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that we were all aware of the standing order. I have been in the House 25 years and I must confess that I had not known of its existence. No doubt that represents gross negligence on my part; nevertheless, until this morning I was not aware of it.
	The sensible idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was that we should now hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who owes an explanation to the House for the words that he used last night when he inadvertently misled the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, I very much hope, if it is at all possible--I have discussed this with my noble friend Lord McNally--that the issues raised in the amendment might be included in an amendment to Lords amendments tabled in the Commons. It is not right that the issues repeatedly drawn to our attention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, should not be ventilated by means of an amendment in one House or the other.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, so that we understand the procedures that we now face, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip whether my understanding is correct. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will now speak in answer to the all the points made; the Question will then be put, without any further opportunity for any other noble Lord to speak; and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, feels that he has not received the response that he wishes, and wishes therefore that the Third Reading should be postponed until tomorrow, he should at that point shout, "Not Content", and then we can all follow, or not follow, as the case may be. Is my understanding of the procedure correct?

Lord Richard: My Lords, before my noble friend rises to reply, I am not prepared to accept that deal. If we are going to have Third Reading starting now, in the course of which the Minister will give his explanation, I entirely accept that. It is sensible. But if the idea is that the Minister gives his explanation and we then have this wrangle again, that does not seem sensible at all.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I should certainly have been prepared, if advised that it was possible, for the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, wants to be tabled in the Commons, and would have suggested that. Unfortunately, it cannot be done because amendments relating to reasons for detention and grounds for notice could not be taken in the Commons. Only amendments which are consequential on amendments made in this place can be taken, and none has been made.
	My noble friend Lord Bassam has a very full reply to all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and has discussed them. Before I sit down--I hope for the last time in this discussion--I would express the hope that this House is not going to get into the habit, after all its years of agreement and co-operation, of every other day deciding itself, rather than through the usual channels, whether we should take a Third Reading. We must make this House work.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point. I telephoned the Public Bill Office and asked it to repeat my amendments, with an amendment. The amendments suggested that the police should give full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon. That had been objected to by the Minister on the grounds that it involved too big an obligation. So I amended my proposal and dictated the amendment to the Public Bill Office, which rang back later to say that it was not able to be tabled because I was out of time. So what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should be dealing with is the amendment, which merely deletes the word "full" before "particulars" and inserts, in lieu of "full", "essential".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not intended to produce a major procedural wrangle. I obviously owe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a fulsome apology for having misled him at 10.30 yesterday evening when I endeavoured to help him in suggesting that he should table the amendments again for tomorrow--I obviously got the words wrong--so that we could provide him with an explanation as to why we were content with our position. I apologise unreservedly to the noble and learned Lord. I also apologise unreservedly to your Lordships' House. I was merely trying to be helpful, because I had appreciated that the House wanted to have an opportunity to hear what the Government had to say in response to the noble and learned Lord's points; that seemed to me proper and right. I have also greatly appreciated the degree of co-operation which the Government have enjoyed in seeking to achieve this piece of legislation in the week before the Summer Recess. There is common agreement on all sides that, for the most part, we have had civilised debates and tried to solve problems as we have gone along.
	I said that I would offer an explanation to the noble and learned Lord when he raised these matters yesterday. The noble and learned Lord now advises me that one of his amendments adopts a slightly different position. I have not had the opportunity fully to think it through, but I shall certainly provide the information that I promised yesterday. The noble and learned Lord asked why the Government had not accepted Amendment No. 39 in his name tabled last night. That amendment would have added a reference to "the grounds set out in section 21A" in new Section 21B.
	I am extremely reluctant to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on a point of statutory interpretation. However, I am advised that the amendment is not necessary and that to make it would be repetitive and confusing. New Section 21A(1) already provides that the powers in both new Sections 21A and 21B are exercisable only if a constable has the grounds set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 21A. It follows that the powers in new Section 21B can be exercised only where those grounds exist. I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that explanation.
	I also explained to the House last night why, reluctantly, I was unable to accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that "full particulars" should be given in the reasons for detention under new Section 21A or the grounds in new Section 21B. The noble and learned Lord asked what I envisaged would be contained in the reasons and grounds to be given. In relation to the power of detention under new Section 21A, I have explained that the section already goes beyond what the common law, required under the doctrine of Christie v. Leachinsky, and what PACE requires on arrest under Section 28; namely, that the person arrested must be told the grounds for his arrest.
	New Section 21A goes further and requires that the person be given the grounds in writing. This is a short-term power of detention to make enquiries to decide whether or not to issue a notice under new Section 21B. I do not envisage that the grounds will go further than to explain the provision under which the detention takes place, the statutory grounds for detention and the fact that consideration is being given to the issue of a notice under new Section 21B. We believe that that is sufficient to inform the person detained of the reason for his detention.
	As to the grounds to be stated in the notice under new Section 21B, I fully accept that more detail is required to enable adequate preparation for the forthcoming court appearance. It may not be practical in every case to give full particulars of all the evidence to be relied on at the hearing. But I certainly expect, and will ensure that guidance to the police reflects, that the notice will contain details of any previous convictions on which it is sought to rely and the reasons for believing that the person is likely to be involved in football-related violence. I shall certainly encourage the police to include as much information as they can at the time the notice is issued. Obviously, further evidence may come to light between the issue of the notice and the court hearing.
	The speed with which we hope to bring these matters to court may not allow for the full advance disclosure which is normal in civil proceedings. I hope noble Lords agree that it is of the utmost importance to bring these cases before a court as quickly as possible. That may mean that full details will not be available at the time of the issue of the notice. But it would not be right to delay issue of the notice or delay a court hearing, and potentially increase the period of detention, simply so that a comprehensive document can be prepared.
	I can assure the House that guidance will emphasise the importance of giving the individual concerned as much advance notice as possible of the evidence against him. The availability of legal advice and assistance will help in this respect. The respondents in these cases will have access to legal advice. If they need more time to prepare for the hearing the court will be able to adjourn for that reason. I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we shall do as much as we can to meet the spirit of his amendments.
	I turn to the noble and learned Lord's further amendment relating to the provision of essential rather than full particulars. I am afraid that the same range of objections applies to providing on the face of the Bill that the police must provide essential as opposed to full particulars. As much information as possible should be given in the notice under new Section 21B, but it would not be right to prevent reliance on new information which came to light after the issue of the notice and before the hearing.
	I assure the House that guidance to the police will ensure that as many particulars as possible are included in the notice. We intend to consider carefully and consult upon the range of guidance that we give the police in dealing with these matters. I said that I would attempt to share that information with the noble and learned Lord. Clearly, the publication of that guidance and consultation upon it should be as full as possible. I believe that we are approaching this matter in the right order.
	We have been over these matters on two previous occasions. I hope that my explanation satisfies your Lordships. I again apologise for inadvertently provoking what has turned out to be a rather lengthy but interesting procedural debate.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, my particulars are criticised because they require the information to be given in writing. If one looks at page 9, line 21, of the Bill one sees that the obligation inserted by the Government is that reasons for detaining the individual must be given in writing. Therefore, we are ad idem on that particular matter. A new criticism has emerged which is not supported by the Bill now before your Lordships. The Minister says in effect that one must not oblige those concerned to give the essential grounds; they may find it difficult to do so. Further, the Government will provide unpublished guidance to safeguard the defendant. People must rely on the Government to get the guidance right and the police to comply with that guidance. All of that is meant to protect a person who is at risk of losing his liberty, not on the basis of evidence or hard facts but suspicion--that is the word used in the Bill--and belief. I suggest to noble Lords that that is quite inadequate.
	On Question, Bill read a third time.

Schedule 1 [Amendments of the Football Spectators Act 1989]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 5, line 14, leave out ("absolutely or").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have reflected on the reasons put forward in Committee by noble Lords opposite as to why it is inappropriate to impose a football banning order on someone who has been convicted of a football-related offence but has received an absolute discharge for it. Despite the fact that this provision is carried over from earlier legislation, we have concluded that we can do without this provision, and today we have tabled an amendment which will have that effect. I thank those noble Lords who were, quite rightly on reflection, insistent on this matter and drew it to our attention. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches put down these amendments, and I spoke to this particular amendment, I believe, just before or just after midnight on Monday. I am, of course, grateful to the Government for taking up this point, but a certain amount of time could have been saved if the Government had accepted the amendment at the time instead of putting forward arguments, as they did on that occasion, as to why they should not take it on board. However, I am grateful that they have changed their minds.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a valuable change, albeit a modest one in its importance. For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he was speaking at about 1.40 a.m. when he last moved this particular amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rejected it in absolute terms. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord is now proposing it to us, we support it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 2.
	Page 10, line 11, leave out ("appropriate chief officer of police") and insert ("constable").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 arise from a discussion at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that British citizens could be issued with a notice under new Section 21B but that there would be no appropriate chief officer of police to make the application under new Section 14B if the person did not reside in England and Wales. This caused the Government to look again at new Section 21B(4) and made us alive to a more general difficulty. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for alerting us to the problem.
	We envisage in most cases that the powers in new Section 21A and 21B will not be exercised in the individual's home area but near a point of embarkation. In that case, it would not be appropriate for the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides to be deemed to be the applicant for the order.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 therefore amend new Section 21B(4), so that the applicant for the banning order in the case of someone issued a notice under the new Section is the constable who issues the notice rather than the chief officer for the person's home address.
	I hope that is a clear amendment, and I am confident that the amendment will achieve the objective we are seeking. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I confess to having moved an amendment in Committee relating to this provision but it omitted the proposal that British citizens could be caught under new Section 21A and subsequent sections. It covered people resident in England and Wales, referred to in new Sections 14A and 14B. I pointed out, I believe rightly, that the wording in the Bill was ineffective. I very much hoped that the Government would go away and look at my amendment and decide that only the English and Welsh should be collared at the ports, rather than British citizens. The Government have come back and emphasised the fact by making this section relate to British citizens being collared at the ports.
	We are looking at a Bill whose basic arrangements in new Sections 14A and 14B, and, indeed, in the underlying Football Spectators Act 1989, relate to people resident in England and Wales and to their misbehaviour abroad. All the penalties and remedies are designed for people living in England and Wales, but in new Section 21C we suddenly have the concept that those who can be collared by the police at the ports are to be British citizens. People resident in Scotland cannot be caught under new Sections 14A or 14B but if they happen to try and go out through the port of Dover they will suddenly find themselves caught by the provisions of this Bill.
	I do not believe there has ever been an explanation from the Minister as to why there is this difference in the Bill. Under what circumstances is it intended that people who are resident in Scotland should be collared by the police when they try to leave through an English or Welsh port? Why has the Bill been written in that way? Why is it wished to have jurisdiction over the Scots in those circumstances, or, indeed, over people who might be living in France or Australia or anywhere else in the world, just because they happen to leave from an English port even though they are not resident in England?
	Presumably, the Government have a list of undesirable Scots and they know they cannot collar them in Scotland because the Scottish Executive will not allow them the power to do it. But if those people have the temerity to try and leave through Dover they will find themselves nabbed. If they are nabbed the consequences are quite spectacular. The remedies are designed for the English and Welsh, which means that the first thing the Scots will be told is that they cannot go home to Scotland. They will have to hang around in England and Wales until their day in the magistrates' court comes up, and that may be postponed for some while. Indeed, if they announce their intention to go back to Scotland--as they might reasonably do--the magistrates have the power to imprison them and keep them in England.
	When those people receive the banning order--because presumably the police are not going to collar a Scot unless they have reasonable evidence against him--they will have to come back to England, register at a police station and surrender their passports every time England plays a match abroad. That could be 20 times or so a year, so these unfortunate Scots will be brought scurrying back across the Border 20 times a year. It is ridiculous.
	What is the purpose of the extension of this jurisdiction to Scotland? It is indeed much wider, although I suspect that not many Australian football thugs will be travelling through Dover to matches in France. It may well be that people resident or working in Europe might be collared at Dover at some stage, and that may be part of the Government's intention. They may believe that there are people involved in football violence who are actually resident on the continent of Europe and want to be able to catch them any time they come through the port of Dover. It does, as an extension of the injustices done by this Bill, have an extraordinary lack of sensitivity for the feelings of those Scots who will be caught by this provision, and for the consequent feelings of their nation. This really does take the Bill into new territory even by its standards.
	I urge the Minister to think again and to accept the ineffectiveness of this part of the Bill with which the Government have landed themselves in relation to Scots, or, if not, at least to make some further amendment in the Commons to make it quite clear that the only people who are going to be stopped at the ports are residents of England and Wales and not those from north of the Border or from Northern Ireland.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas drew my attention to this matter and I have listened with interest to what he has said. I am not sure how many people resident in Scotland will want to go abroad to a football match in which England play, unless, of course, it is to support the opposing team, whoever they may be. I am not saying that because I necessarily support it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. When I attended the England versus Germany match in Charleroi I saw a Scottish flag at the German end, so it is just possible that they may have travelled abroad to support the Germans.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the Minister is probably right. I am not saying that I approve of this attitude but I certainly recognise that it exists, so it is possible that somebody resident in Scotland might go abroad to support the opposing team. Of course, there could be an Englishman resident in Scotland who goes abroad to support the English team. Leaving aside the merits or demerits of the whole of the Bill, what happens when that person is stopped at Dover and is expected to turn up at the police station in England on future occasions to hand in his passport and therefore not be able to go abroad to a football match? That seems to me an unnecessary burden on the individual.
	Perhaps it goes a little further. What happens if he uses his passport to leave directly from Scotland? What will the English policeman do about that because he will not have jurisdiction in Scotland? Indeed, I suspect travel agents may be looking into the business which can be conducted on the back of this Bill and the fact that there is a backdoor exit from the United Kingdom into Europe.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. If a native of Scotland does that he will have committed a criminal offence by breaking the banning order and presumably we can have him extradited back to England.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend raises another issue. Perhaps the Minister will explain what would happen if an individual decided to travel abroad directly from Scotland without coming to England to surrender his passport. Legislation ought properly to address such detail. As a result of devolution, there will be real problems as regards this and other issues.
	If it were not for devolution, no doubt we should be addressing the matter on a UK-wide basis. But because of devolution, and because the Scottish Parliament rightly sees no need to impose these restrictions on the Scots, the Government may have a problem dealing with such issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps in reply the Minister will deal with the question of the Irish. I know nothing whatever about football and the point had not occurred to me until I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Lucas, but I understand that around Merseyside certain teams attract a heavy measure of Irish support. I have little doubt that a number of those Irish supporters will have Irish as well as British nationality.
	I do not know whether any of them have two passports or the Government's intention in this respect. I am unsure of these matters while the Minister is sure-footed on them. Perhaps he can explain the implications of taking from a foreign citizen the passport which has been issued to him by a foreign government.
	The point emphasises the untidiness of the legislation and how much easier it would have been had we had a little more time to consider these matters.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's point about the amount of time we have been given to consider these matters. During our debates on the Bill, from Second Reading onwards, we have repeatedly come across the Scottish angle in the case of an Englishman travelling to a match overseas via Scotland. That would seem to be good for Scottish airports and so forth.
	The amendment takes the matter a stage further because it extends to those resident in Scotland. I was surprised to realise that when I saw the amendment this morning but the Minister confirmed it a few moments ago. I am now in no doubt about it. It will be difficult for someone resident in Scotland to contemplate travelling at the time of a football match, never mind whether he is attending, if he believes that he might fall foul of this legislation. He certainly will not want to use Newcastle airport.
	With respect to my noble friend, such an individual would be relatively unlikely to use Dover but he would be likely to use Newcastle or Teesside airport. He may there be served with a notice by the police, told he has to turn up at the magistrates' court in Newcastle the next day and be unable to return home. Assuming he is not detained by the police, he will then have to spend the night in Newcastle in an hotel. He will then have to turn up 40 times a year; 20 times a year to hand in his passport and 20 times a year to collect it!
	He will be allowed compensation only if the magistrates refuse the order. His hotel bill will then be paid--assuming that he has not spent more than £5,000 on the hotel--as will his flight and so forth. However, he will be put to extreme difficulty. The result will be that he will stay in Scotland. I know of no extradition treaty nor way in which he can be made to turn up in the town of the airport he was using in order to hand in his passport, or whatever.
	In effect, we are setting up internal exile in Scotland. That means that not only will an Englishman be refused permission to go to Scotland if he falls foul of the legislation--at least for a period because he will be confined to England and Wales by the police notice--but now a Scotsman will not be able to come to England if he is not careful. In that sense, the measure is extremely divisive and we need a good explanation of why the amendment has been moved at the last minute to extend all the powers to Scotsmen.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, put his finger on the Irish issue. It is difficult to understand in this extremely badly drafted, badly thought-through Bill what happens to Irish citizens who also have British passports. If such a person shows his Irish passport, presumably the police can take no action. However, if he shows his British passport, it can be seized under the circumstances we have discussed.
	As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, given the large number of Irish citizens who come to this country to watch Liverpool and Manchester United, it is important that the Minister clarifies the matter tonight.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate that not all Members of your Lordships' House like or appreciate the Bill or believe that it is the right legislation. I also appreciate that there may well be one or two interesting anomalies. However, by and large, it must be understood that the legislation is primarily aimed at dealing with a problem with English supporters, and English club supporters, travelling abroad. That has also been the primary purpose of other legislation introduced with this and previous governments in trying to wrestle with the difficulties associated with football hooligans.
	I shall deal with the points that have been raised, in particular about Scotland. A banning order can be made after conviction in England and Wales regardless of nationality or permanent residence. A banning order could be made in relation to a Scot against whom the powers in new Section 21B are exercised. One effect of a banning order is to report to a police station in England and Wales. It is unlikely that an order would be made in relation to a Scot who lived in Scotland because the test in new Section 14(4)(b) is unlikely to be met in his case.
	However, there is no reason why an order should not be made in relation to any of the many Scots who are resident in England and Wales, unlikely though in practice that may be. It is extremely unlikely that many Scots will travel with a hooligan intent in support of an English team, or perhaps an English club team--but perhaps the latter is more likely than the former.
	In our view, the banning order is not likely to be made in relation to a Scot who is resident in Scotland. It is unlikely that the test of new Section 14(4) will be met. We believe that an order in this case is unlikely to help prevent violence at football matches.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised one or two questions. There is no power under the Bill to take the passports of foreign nationals. The measure applies only to British passports. I believe that commonly we understand that. A person with dual nationality can be required to surrender only his British passport but he can be issued with a notice, prevented from travelling and summoned to appear in court. I believe that that answers the various questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, too. These amendments were moved in order to make the Bill more workable and more flexible. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 10, line 11, at end insert ("and subsection (1) of that section is to have effect as if the references to the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside were references to that constable").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Bill puts four distinct powers on to the statute book. I shall list them in order of increasing controversy. The first is the combining of domestic and international banning orders. The second is the withdrawal of passports from those with banning orders. The third is the magistrates' power to issue banning orders on application by the police, even where there is no conviction for football offences or, for that matter, any conviction. The fourth is the power given to the police to detain a person for six hours for inquiries and to restrict his movements to England and Wales for up to 24 hours until he attends the magistrates' court in order to ascertain whether a banning order should be made or, in some cases, to detain him in those circumstances.
	Broadly speaking, the first three are not matters of great controversy, but the fourth is. The longer the issue has been debated, the more doubts I must admit to having about it. My doubts relate, first, to how the power will work in practice. I refer to its practical effects, some of which we discussed a few moments ago. Secondly, I have doubts about how the power will work legally and whether it will stand up. I do not believe that we have heard arguments to demonstrate that it clears the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU treaties or the various other matters that have been raised. There is certainly doubt about its legality in that respect. Great doubts have also been expressed about its liberty aspects: it is a new "sus" law of a very specific kind.
	Originally, the Secretary of State justified the Bill as being a response to a wholly new phenomenon or, at least, a new angle to an old phenomenon; that is, that a large number of the individuals who caused trouble in Belgium were not known to the police in any form and had not committed an offence. We now know that the Belgian police returned to this country a good number of people--no one knows precisely how many, but a substantial proportion--by what can only be described as a "mistake". Those people had done nothing and did not deserve to be returned. Therefore, in that sense and in part, we are at risk of passing this legislation because of the errors of the Belgian police.
	However, throughout the arguments we have all acknowledged that there is a national problem. We all hate to see television pictures of our compatriots rioting in the streets of foreign towns when football matches take place and we all want the Government to do something about it. The first two, or even three, of the powers under the Bill have been urged on the Government for some time. We ourselves have urged them on the Government and so have others. That is why I have done my best to live up to what I said at Second Reading; that is, not to stand in the way of the Bill and to allow the Government to have the powers for which they ask in order to attempt to deal with the problem.
	As your Lordships decided yesterday, those powers will last for two years. In the meantime, we can consider whether to make them permanent and whether the controversial elements of the powers--the only parts to which the sunset clause applies--should be either refined and put back on the statute book or not proceeded with. That will depend on the legality, the practicality and the liberty aspects of them as they emerge in practice.
	There is a great national problem. I believe that it is right that certainly three of the powers should be put on the statute book. I am prepared for the Government to operate the fourth power for two years and then for the matter to be considered further and a decision made on how we should proceed from there. It is possible that additional measures will need to be put in place. In the course of our debates, some have been suggested, such as extra-territoriality. In addition, we all know that there are non-statutory things to be done. The Minister has spoken about them at intervals during the debates and we are entirely supportive of his efforts in that respect.
	It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that the Government intend to accept the two-year period and will not attempt to reverse that amendment in another place. To my mind, it is an important element in deciding to put this legislation on the statute book. The unsatisfactory element--the fourth power to which I referred--is the one to which primarily the sunset clause refers. I believe that if we are to include these unsatisfactory powers, the least time that they are in force the better. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me. However, in general, and certainly so far as concerns the first three powers, I support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is 34 years since I first met Jack Straw at the Exeter conference of the National Union of Students. For a time earlier this afternoon I believe that we should both have recognised the atmosphere of a National Union of Students conference where regular debates were postponed while points of order to points of order to points of order were put by various barrack-room lawyers, some of them now in the Government.
	I do not believe that in my experience in either House I have ever been part of such a lawyerfest as we have had over the past few days. If this were a lawyerfest, my prediction is that there will be further feasting from this Bill for my learned friends once the various appeal procedures get under way.
	I do not attach any blame to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for what happened earlier. I believe that he had been dealing with points for approximately 15 out of 24 hours. The truth is that the fault lies with those who conceived the legislation in haste because they believed it to be populist. It was brought forward in response to No. 10's call for imaginative initiatives and a late-night phone call from Mr Tony Banks requesting quick action before the World Cup vote. When one considers what has taken place, it is quite understandable that the Government got into such a mess.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out that he had kept the promise he made at Second Reading, I should say that my promise at Second Reading was that I could guarantee the Government no smooth passage for the Bill. I claim that that pledge, too, has been redeemed over the past three days.
	I was trying to think of the right words to sum up our position. I found them in tonight's Evening Standard in the column of Mr Mick Dennis. I shall not quote the whole column, although I ask the Minister to read it, because it is a good, sound article. One paragraph bears quoting. It says:
	"The only satisfactory way of identifying a hooligan is to arrest him, charge him and present evidence to a court of law. That way, he or his solicitor can challenge that evidence and call witnesses for the defence. It is the system we use for every other crime in this country".
	That remains the position of the Liberal Democrats. We do not think that the Government have proceeded sensibly and we remain very concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the Bill. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I take great comfort from the sunset clause that has been adopted. Like him, I hope that the Minister will assure us that no attempt will be made to reverse it in another place. That would not bring credit to the Government or make the Bill any better.
	The Bill needs to be put in perspective. It may help to deal with the problem of soccer hooliganism, but I do not think that it is the cure-all. I know that the Minister agrees that we have to ensure that the players, the media and the clubs play their part. All those parties need to think carefully before they kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs. Sponsors and advertisers will not continue to pay large sums for ever if, in the public mind, soccer is identified with the worst elements of behaviour in our society.
	One of the most important things to come out of the Government's initiative is not the Bill or its fourth power, but the Minister's committee. I hope that he grabs that opportunity with both hands. Far too many people in the Government like to be associated with soccer for its ersatz glamour. They imagine themselves as football directors in camelhair coats, puffing on their cigars. However, I know that the Minister is a genuine soccer fan. I hope that his committee looks at issues such as the influence of drink on hooliganism, good policing practices as well as failures, the effectiveness of measures such as club life bans, as applied by Leeds, the importance of a vigorous prosecution policy--a real truth and consequences for hooliganism--and the theme of extraterritoriality.
	There is also an urgent need for the appointment of a soccer regulator. I am not being frivolous when I say that our debates have shown that the Government have a candidate in the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds. I would have much more confidence if I thought that he was going to regulate soccer than I have in some of the names that have been bandied about.
	We have gone through a rather fevered period for the Home Office. The Home Office works best when it is occupied by cool heads who keep matters in perspective, not by people seeking eye-catching initiatives. The Home Office should not be a ministry of internal security; it should be our first line of defence for civil liberties. We have had enough Home Office Bills that chip away at our civil liberties. We expect Home Office Ministers to be as conscious and wary as everybody else of short-term expediency that could have long-term consequences for civil liberties.
	The sunset clause means that the Bill is experimental. Let the Government have their experiment and we shall return to these matters another day.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in almost his last speech, the Minister used certain words again and again: "intended", "likely", "unlikely", "not intended". Ministers should not be telling us what their legislation is "intended" or "likely" to achieve. It should be clear what legislation will achieve in judicial terms. The Bill has been so sloppily drafted that it is in danger of encountering the law of unintended consequences. As noble Lords know, that law is that if an unintended consequence is possible, it will almost certainly follow.
	I have two thoughts on the issue. First, if we had let the Government have the powers for which they asked in the form in which they asked for them as the Bill came to us from another place, there would have been even more unintended consequences. It is because this House has been rather difficult--generally good humoured, but occasionally fractious--that the Bill is no worse than it might have been.
	Secondly, had I, as a Minister, had the difficulty of dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and had I relied on the advice of my officials that he was wrong and they were right, I would be uneasy in my ministerial seat. I have a feeling that it will not be long before the Government regret that they did not make it possible for the noble and learned Lord's amendment to be fully discussed, and preferably accepted.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I disagree with only one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said: that the Bill has been significantly improved in this place. It has not. It is a striking contrast with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, on which the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, laboured, as did my noble friend Lord McNally and I, together with the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Lucas. That Bill came to this House in a tawdry and inadequate state and left it much improved. This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition, but from the Government Benches.
	I may be a recent arrival in this place, but if ever a Bill called not for emergency speed, but for emergency slowness and deliberation, this was it. Some noble Lords have taken a cavalier view of the Bill. There has been too much concentration on hooligans, whom we all deplore, and not nearly enough consideration of the fundamental legal aspects. I fear that I, too, have fallen prey to that tendency many times, thinking about hooligans when I should have been thinking about hooliganism. We have all slipped into the temptation to draw up a Bill designed to convict people whom we know are guilty.
	The problem with hooligans is that they are difficult to find and to pin down, as the experience of Euro 2000 clearly shows. Let us make no mistake about what we have done. We have a long and proud history of dealing with difficult issues that balance liberty against public order. For the first time, we have ended up with legislation that will ban people from an activity for up to 10 years on the basis of wholly lawful conduct that could have taken place up to 10 years in the past.
	In effect, we shall be punishing past actions under provisions of a law that did not exist at the time they took place, actions that were lawful and actions that are lawful now. Many instances have been cited of such cases: student demonstrations and riots, peaceful demonstrations, demonstrations in regard to genetically modified crops, demonstrations against animal treatment and a 101 other such instances. There has been too much of an assumption that we all know with whom we are dealing. I am afraid that down the ages tyrants have said, "We know who we are dealing with".
	I have not been impressed with the reassurances given again and again by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we should not worry that the powers in the Bill are uniquely wide. The noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord McNally, and others have made the point that the hurdles set by the Bill are uniquely low. We are told, "Do not worry, the police will be responsible and the justices of the peace will be wise". If that were the basis on which we legislate in matters of this kind we would forget "intent", we would forget "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" and we would forget most of the protections to which we have clung in fair weather and foul down the long course of our history.
	Most disreputable of all is the attempt by the Government to dress up this Bill as a civil measure. It is not a civil measure. It has punishments of a criminal nature; its context is of a criminal nature; it involves detention; it involves endless processes before magistrates' courts; it involves the police at every turn. My heart goes out to the police who will have to implement the Bill and my heart also goes out to the magistrates who will have to construe it and apply it. I repeat that it is disreputable that the Government have cast a civil shroud around this corpse so that they can get by on a civil test of proof and so that they can justify retrospectiveness.
	In the two years that I have been a Member of this House I have always felt, when a piece of legislation has been concluded, that the House has done its best. I have always felt that we have done a fairly good job. But in this case I have the sense that this shoddy Bill has not been dealt with in the way that is expected of us. We have not discharged our duty of protecting fundamental liberties in balance with our proper purpose of trying to deal with an extremely intractable social evil.
	This is a precedent that will ring down the ages. It is all well and good to say that there is a "sunset" clause, but the sun should never have risen on this Bill. The Government are already justifying the Bill on the back of the anti-social behaviour orders, which have been attacked and which were the subject of the sort of reassurance that we have had, but we have gone three steps further than the Crime and Disorder Bill ever went. At Second Reading I attempted to explain how the reassurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill, have been broken in every instance in this Bill.
	Although lawyers have a reputation for being money-making cynics, I believe that all lawyers in the House are extremely disillusioned by this measure. It is difficult not to use rather inflated language. Enough said. I wish the Bill well. I fear for it; I fear for the precedent that it creates. I hope that when, under the "sunset" provisions, the Bill comes back, it will be consigned to the place it deserves.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his courtesy, good humour, patience and stamina. I confess that I am puzzled and disappointed by the attitude of the Opposition. I do not refer to the Back Bench opposition--to the rigorous, hard-hitting and effective opposition provided, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and above all by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which cannot be faulted--but to the Front Bench Opposition, or perhaps I should say the shadow Cabinet Opposition. I mean no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, whose interventions have been most effective, particularly in speaking to the second amendment this afternoon.
	This is a Bill, which according to the organisation Justice, seriously breaches European Community law, which does not comply with the Human Rights Act and, as a number of noble Lords from all sides of the House have said, is contrary to British traditions. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has most effectively pointed out, it has not improved since it arrived in this House. If a Bill, or parts of it, are so wrong in principle, merely curtailing the period during which its provisions have effect scarcely makes it any better.
	Suppose that, worried by a sharp increase in muggings and burglaries and other forms of robbery, the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, were to stand up in the House of Commons and announce that he was to introduce a Bill to provide for the introduction of Sharia punishments for the worst forms of theft, encouraged perhaps by focus groups that had reported to the Prime Minister that such punishments would play well with the tabloids. One cannot deny that such punishments may be extremely effective, judging by one's knowledge of the Middle East. Would the Official Opposition say, "We are uneasy about this legislation that seems to run counter to the tradition of British justice, but on the other hand it cannot be denied that the crime wave is extremely serious, so perhaps it is a reasonable compromise to agree to Sharia punishments being applied for a trial period of two years, after which we shall review the situation". One has to wonder!

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I express entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I also express the hope that in reply the Minister will bring himself to say that he agrees with every word of the very effective speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. If the Minister does not agree with every single word, I hope that he will indicate his disagreement and explain why he disagrees.
	In other contexts I have asked about this matter. I hope that Ministers who bring this kind of legislation before Parliament will pause to reflect on what they themselves would have said if they had been sitting on this side of the House and had been faced with this kind of sloppy rubbish. I have always rather admired the skill of the Labour Party in opposition. It has had a good deal of experience in that role. Had it been faced with a Bill of this kind, it would have been the first to protest again and again at almost every tenet in it. It would have seen no justification whatever for the measure. I believe that the Government are motivated by purely populist motives. They have no respectable legal argument.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be able to tear the curtain of privacy aside for a moment and explain to the House the processes through which the Bill passed before it was printed and presented to Parliament. I would love to know who took part in those discussions. I suspect that the Bill was composed by a multitude of cooks who ruined what would always be a very bad broth.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this is undoubtedly the worst example of tabloid legislation that I can remember in all the years I have been following parliamentary affairs. It panders to the headlines of the last couple of years. It was bad when it started because it had not been adequately thought through; it remains bad because there is not sufficient time to consider it.
	That is a serious accusation. I hope that if one lesson has been learnt it is that the Government will never again introduce in such a rush legislation which has such serious implications. This legislation tramples on liberty, which should be one of the highest priorities in our consideration of any legislation. Above all, I hope that this House will never again acquiesce in curtailing the proper discussion of such legislation.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I do not like this Bill. I have said that before and will not say it again. I say only this.
	I hope that when we come to evaluate the effects of this Bill before the sunset clause kicks in we take proper care to conduct a good, objective, academic study--perhaps a combination of British and foreign academics--starting now. Then, when we come to review this legislation, we shall have a proper evaluation of it. The success of these provisions should not be that the tabloid headlines go away--tabloids have other things to think about--but that we have not violated the liberty of too many citizens.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I hope that the Government will prove more co-operative than departments sometimes are in letting us know what is happening with the enforcement of this Bill as time goes on. I hope that we will be able to table questions asking, "In relation to such-and-such a foreign football match, how many people were detained under Sections 14A, 14B and 21A? And if under 21A, what was their treatment and what were the grounds?". I hope we do not receive the answer that those statistics are not held centrally. It is the usual answer to questions about what is happening in magistrates' courts. Proper answers are crucial. I hope the Minister will confirm that statistics will be collected centrally and will be made available promptly to Parliament either in an organised way or on request when noble Lords table questions.
	With his colleagues through the usual channels, I hope also that the Chief Whip will consider the desirability of setting up a committee of this House or perhaps of both Houses to watch over this Bill. With a two-year sunset period, the process of the next Bill through both Houses of Parliament will start in about 15 months. Before then we need to have looked carefully at the way this Bill is being put into effect; to have consulted widely; to have a clear idea of where it falls in relation to the Human Rights Act and European law. There is much we can do by discussion and consultation which has not been possible in bringing forward this Bill. I hope that the powers that be will allow this House to take the time to look at the legislation carefully, so that when we come to the next Bill we do so in an informed manner.
	We are looking at a Bill which trespasses on human rights in a way which we should be extremely careful of doing. First, it is arbitrary. The tests in new Sections 14A and 14B will be met by over half the young white males who attend foreign football matches, though not nearly that number will be picked up. The people who are arraigned under this Bill will be chosen arbitrarily by the police on the basis of what they wish to do. That application of the law is extremely undesirable. It will impose on people who have not committed a crime--they may never have committed a crime--the stigma and inconvenience of a criminal conviction from the restrictions under which they are placed. It may even result in their serving a term of imprisonment under new Section 21, and that term of imprisonment may be quite extended.
	This Bill trespasses on civil liberties in a way which we should be extremely careful about doing. We know that the Government have a penchant towards this kind of trespass. We know that there is a proposal in the wings which might unkindly be called, "Lock up the loonies", whereby people can be subjected to eternal imprisonment on the basis that it is thought they might commit a crime.
	We can see the result of going down that road. We know that it will lead to a relative absence of crime. We can look at the history of Soviet Russia and see that crime, at least among the governed rather than the governing classes, was pretty low under that system. We can eliminate crime if we go down the route of eliminating civil liberties. When we look at Northern Ireland today we can see that the arbitrary enforcement of anti-drug measures by the IRA and others perhaps resulted in a reduction of drugs crime. But that is not the route down which we wish to go.
	Liberty involves inconvenience; it costs us something. But it is a prize for which we have fought in the past and for which we should struggle ever to retain. We should not go back on the Petition of Right 1628. We gained that privilege after a long struggle and at the end of it suffered a civil war. We should not lightly allow the Government to trespass on that territory and allow arbitrary imprisonment as part of our civil law.
	The amendment we won to restrict this Bill for two years is a ray of light. It gives me some comfort that we shall be able to consign it to the grave relatively soon, though I suspect it will have been badly mauled by the lawyers before then. I wish the Bill no good at all. But I am afraid we have to let it pass.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have had a long Second Reading debate at the end of this Third Reading tonight. I listened carefully to all the contributions. I was merely going to rise and thank everyone for their patience and forbearance with the debates we had on Monday, Tuesday and last Thursday on this Bill.
	I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his constructive approach. I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose views on football I share in almost every respect. We may have disagreed once or twice in relation to this legislation, but we are close in our analysis and understanding of what we need to do to change the nature and face of some of the support for part of our game.
	I also want to pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Woolmer for his constructive and thoughtful observations based on his practical experience as a director and also to my noble friend Lord Faulkner. His was one of the best contributions in our Second Reading debate.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Bach who has done a sterling job, not least for keeping me awake among other things. He also did an excellent job in fortifying the arguments.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for being the good civil libertarian that he undoubtedly is. I do not know whether he is a supporter of Sudbury Town or Sudbury Wanderers. They used to take part in a fiercesome local derby, though I doubt it ever led to hooliganism. However, it may have informed his opinions in your Lordships' House. He also contributed greatly by raising the issue of extra-territoriality. I gave an undertaking to the House that we would look at that issue seriously. It certainly receives a measure of support. I said it was not a strategy; I do not believe it is. But it may be part of one.
	I suppose I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for his occasional contributions to this debate. I learnt, as did many Members of your Lordships House, that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has become a latter-day civil libertarian. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with the fact that he once watched a football match in Scotland, about which he told us. I am amused by the notion of his being a civil libertarian; but better late than never!
	We have had a most constructive debate. I know that there is unease in your Lordships' House about some of the measures. However, I happen to believe that our primary purpose here is being well served; namely, to protect the civil rights and liberties of the honest, decent and law-abiding majority of people who wish to attend football matches in peace and enjoy such games as they should best be enjoyed. That is what motivated me in bringing forward this legislation and I know that it is the primary purpose that informs the way in which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers such matters.
	It is not about eye-catching headlines in newspapers; it is about trying to deal with long-term problems. This is part of that strategy; indeed, it has been part of the strategy of not just this Government but also the previous government. I pay tribute to them in their endeavours and efforts to try to tackle such problems. We all owe it to the country to play a part in that process. I appreciate the kind consideration that noble Lords have shown and the kind words that have been expressed during the course of the debates on the Bill. I am most grateful to noble Lords for the close attention that they have given to the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked me whether I could say something about the sunset clause. I regret to say that I am not in a position to advise the House on whether we shall look again at that particular amendment. However, I have certainly taken on board the comments made from all parts of the House during the debate. As I made plain at the time when moving a government amendment, we were sympathetic to a shorter rather than a longer period. But the House has spoken on that issue; it is for others to reflect upon it.
	This is a good Bill. I am sure that it will be helpful. I have no doubt that it will be effective. This debate will doubtless continue over the next few years as we approach the point when we need to look again at the legislation.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

Brought from the Commons, read a first time; and to be printed.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time.
	Clause 4 [Qualification or authorisation of nominees and supervisors]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, l5 to 18 and 21 to 30. When we moved these amendments both in Committee and on Report, the point that I made was a very simple one: if a company or debtor in financial difficulties consults an authorised person, that person may be tempted to recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement because he will then be able to act as nominee or as supervisor in his role as an authorised person and so get paid as the nominee or the supervisor. If he does not recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement, he will not be paid for the advice that he gives. In many cases the authorised person will be so tempted and will recommend an insolvency procedure that is inappropriate.
	I believe that the Minister knows that I really have the bit between my teeth on this issue. We feel that it is important to try to get this point across on Third Reading. We are also concerned about the suggestion that there is some kind of hidden agenda behind our opposition. I have never said that there was a hidden agenda.
	In the Minister's response to what I said on Report he said that he would write to me to make it plain that nominees and supervisors would be able to act in relation to voluntary arrangements generally and not just in moratorium cases. I am grateful for that correspondence but, with great respect, I never understood otherwise. The noble Lord then went on to say that it would be strange to suggest that the Secretary of State would regard Clause 4 as a measure of dumbing down on standards. Perhaps I may point out that I do not suggest that the Secretary of State would regard Clause 4 as a means of dumbing down on standards.
	The Minister also said that the proposition that only a licensed insolvency practitioner will ever have the skills necessary to act as a nominee or supervisor was untenable. Again, I do not make that proposition. The noble Lord went on to say that there were areas of a supervisor's role, such as collecting in regular payments and distributing them in accordance with the terms of an agreed voluntary arrangement, where it would be absurd to claim that the particular skills of an insolvency practitioner are always needed. Again, with respect, I do not--and did not--make that claim.
	We believe that any authorised person should be licensed to be an office holder in bankruptcies, administrations and liquidations. If he is not so licensed and if he is asked for advice as to which insolvency procedure is appropriate, he will be less likely to recommend bankruptcy, administration or liquidation. Because an authorised person will only be authorised to act as a nominee or supervisor, he is more likely to recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement. If he recommends the former, he will not be remunerated. If he recommends the latter, he will be remunerated. Human nature is such that he will find it difficult to resist the recommendation that leads to remuneration rather than no remuneration.
	To suggest that Clause 4 will not give rise to that danger is unrealistic. It happens now with licensed insolvency practitioners where some of them recommend insolvency procedures where they are more likely to be appointed and remain as the office holder than others. Further, as the Minister said on Report, there have been accusations, which have been made known to the insolvency service, that if insolvency practitioners provide advice as authorised persons they are more likely to recommend insolvency procedures through which they can make money. With respect, the Minister cannot ignore us; nor can he ignore those accusations. There is no doubt that, as currently drafted, the Bill introduces an element that might give rise to the danger feared by those of us who have made those accusations known to the insolvency service.
	The Minister also mentioned previously that those who seek the advice of authorised persons must take into account the possibility that those who are advising them might receive fees through one course of action rather than through another course of action. The noble Lord said that he was sure they would do so. I accept that some of them may take that into account. However, many of them will not; and it is they whom we seek to protect. The directors of an insolvent company and an insolvent debtor are very susceptible to any advice that may save them from their financial difficulties. They will clutch at straws. Indeed, I suggest that many of them will be desperate. We should do all that we can to protect them. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said. However, I am as perplexed as ever. I entirely accept what she said about the various points where she believes I accused her of saying something that was not her intention. Indeed, I accept everything she said about her intentions.
	The noble Baroness is now speaking to a quite limited point; namely, the relationship between an authorised person and the person who might ultimately be a nominee or supervisor. However, her amendments do not do that; indeed, they go much further. Like the previous amendments, the current amendments would take the stuffing out of Clause 4, which allows the Secretary of State, under certain very restricted circumstances that I shall spell out, to recognise a body that could provide nominees and supervisors.
	What the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is saying--she has said it before--is that because a person authorised via the new Section 389A of the Insolvency Act will be authorised only to act as a nominee and supervisor, he will inevitably be tempted only to recommend a voluntary arrangement of the kind that he might make money from as a nominee or supervisor. Of course, all of that is speculation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the charge which has been made that when advice is given by insolvency practitioners to a company in difficulties, they might be tempted to recommend a course of action from which they could make money as insolvency practitioners. A serious charge of that kind needs to be examined on a case by case basis. We have to determine whether that happens; otherwise it is mere speculation. I suggest that the charge that authorised persons who are qualified to become nominees and supervisors might be tempted to recommend a voluntary arrangement also constitutes speculation and needs to be tested.
	The amendments ignore the realities of the situation. Under new Section 389A the Secretary of State will be able to recognise a body to authorise its members to act as nominees or supervisors in relation to voluntary arrangements. But he will only be able to do so if the body maintains and enforces--I emphasise the words "maintains and enforces"--rules for securing that its members are fit and proper persons to act as nominees or supervisors and meet acceptable requirements as to education and practical training and experience. That means that if an individual did not continue to maintain those standards--I can imagine that an accusation that he had used his position as an authorised person to put business his way would be a serious accusation and a serious departure from those standards--he should be dealt with appropriately by the body we are discussing. I assure noble Lords that nothing of importance would be lost by the absence of the word "professional" from what will be the new section.
	The power as drafted makes clear that the Secretary of State will recognise only bodies which have in place all that is needed to ensure that their members are up to the mark. Those authorised will also have to have in force security, or in Scotland, caution, for the proper performance of their functions which meets the prescribed requirements. For instance, we need to provide that the surety or cautioner will be jointly and severally liable with the nominee or supervisor for losses caused by the fraud or dishonesty of the office holder. So a body looking to apply for recognition will have to ensure that its regime for regulating its members is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the high standards currently expected of nominees and supervisors can continue to be met. Why on earth would the Secretary of State want standards to fall? However, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has not said that she thinks they will fall. The regime may be different from that applied to insolvency practitioners because of the limited authorisation but it will have to be rigorous and effective. If not, the body's recognition will be withdrawn.
	I return to the assertion that prospective nominees will be tempted to recommend a voluntary arrangement when it is not appropriate. On a practical level, we cannot see how it would be good for business continually to recommend procedures that did not work. But the assertion ignores the fact that the authorising body will be monitoring its members. Those are the conditions laid down in Clause 4. The kind of conduct about which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, speculates would almost certainly lead to a revocation of authorisation.
	This is not a Bill about authorised persons; this is a Bill about a moratorium and about nominees and supervisors. The amendments would delete from the Bill the provision that there could be an alternative organisation with very rigorous standards to which nominees and supervisors might belong. Unless the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, can convince the House that an authorised person would be more likely--being a member of such an organisation--to recommend something to his advantage than is now the case, I do not think that the amendments have any substance.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am sorry that he has not moved, as it were, on the point about which we feel strongly. We accept that there is no question of wanting standards to fall, as the Minister confirmed today. However, the Minister said that the Bill is not about authorised persons. He also said that it was speculation to suggest that individuals would use their position to obtain business. However, we suggest that it is human nature for individuals to recommend a course of action which will benefit them. We are talking about their livelihood after all. As the Bill is drafted, an authorised person is limited by the licence in terms of what he can do. Therefore, it would be common sense for him to follow a course of action for which he can be remunerated as a nominee or supervisor. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. I am sorry that he will not move on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Moratorium where directors propose voluntary arrangement]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 13, line 12, leave out ("either of those meetings") and insert ("the meeting of creditors").

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Bill as drafted provides that if a creditors' meeting meets and decides to extend the moratorium and the company meeting meets but decides not to, the moratorium will be extended against the express wish of the members, unless, of course, the court orders otherwise under paragraph 35. But if the company meeting has not met, the moratorium comes to an end. In other words, the creditors would not have their wish even though no one had turned up for the company meeting. That is clearly a perverse outcome.
	I know that the Minister will agree with all I have said in speaking to this amendment as I have adopted precisely what he said in his positive remarks on Report. Indeed, in revisiting this amendment at Third Reading, I simply seek to probe the Minister--it is such an important point in our view--as to his thinking on the matter following Report stage. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that my thinking has advanced much, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that at any rate it has not gone backwards. We recognise that there is a serious point behind the amendment. We debated it in Committee and on Report. On Report, although not in Committee, I recognised that the Bill as drafted could lead to a curious outcome--what the noble Baroness calls a perverse outcome.
	If the creditors' meeting met and decided to extend the moratorium and the company meeting met but decided not to, the moratorium would be extended against the express wishes of the shareholders--unless, of course, the court ordered otherwise under paragraph 35.
	But if the company meeting had not met, the moratorium would come to an end. In other words, the creditors would not have their wish even though no one even turned up for the company meeting. That is certainly a perverse outcome. We consider it important that both the creditors and the members are offered the opportunity of meeting within the first 28-day period of the moratorium and, if they are not offered that opportunity, the moratorium should end after the 28-day period. I recognise the validity of the thinking behind the amendment but it does not provide the important safeguard that members of a company are able to have their say. On Report I said that we would bring forward amendments to deal with the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised. We did not expect them to be ready for Third Reading. They will be tabled in another place. I am sorry that they are not ready today, but I repeat the assurances that I have given.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and his reassurances. I look forward to seeing the amendments when they are tabled in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 14, leave out line 19.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, on Report the Minister said that these amendments were wrecking amendments. I protest. They accurately reflect the existing rights of floating charge holders when a petition for an administration order has been presented. In those circumstances, a floating charge holder is entitled to appoint an administrative receiver before an administration order is made. That right has existed since 1986 when the administration order was introduced. That right did not wreck the administration order procedure and we cannot see how that right continuing could possibly wreck the Bill.
	As the Minister observed, the Cork committee saw that opportunities for business rescues were often lost when there was no floating charge holder to appoint a receiver to effect a rescue. The Government subsequently put in place the administration procedure but left intact the right to appoint a receiver whenever possible. The administration order procedure filled the gap either where there was no floating charge holder to appoint an administrative receiver or where the floating charge holder was unwilling to appoint an administrative receiver. The essence of these provisions was to provide an insolvency procedure instead of an administrative receivership.
	The essence of the present proposals is to provide a new insolvency procedure even where a floating charge holder intends to appoint an administrative receiver. That goes beyond what the Cork committee recommended and, as the Minister is aware, seriously interferes with the rights of floating charge holders.
	The Minister said that a floating charge holder might make it plain that he fully intended to appoint an administrative receiver the moment the moratorium came to an end. He said that that act itself might have an impact on the viability of the voluntary agreement, which could in turn cause the nominee to conclude he should withdraw his consent to act, thus ending the moratorium. The floating charge holder could then appoint an administrative receiver.
	Let us suppose that the floating charge holder makes it quite clear that he will do that; let us suppose that he does that in terms where even an authorised person can be left in no doubt whatever that the moment a voluntary arrangement is approved the floating charge holder will appoint an administrative receiver. In those circumstances the nominee would be under an obligation to withdraw his consent to act, thereby ending the moratorium and permitting the floating charge holder to appoint an administrative receiver.
	What if the nominee does not withdraw his consent to act? He will compel the floating charge holder to apply to the court in those circumstances under paragraph 25. That application would add to the expense of appointing an administrative receiver and lead to delay, during which the company's movable assets could simply disappear. What possible benefit is that to anyone?
	In my submission it would be more appropriate to leave a floating charge holder with the right to appoint an administrative receiver during the moratorium. It will then be up to the nominee or the directors to persuade the floating charge holder not to appoint an administrative receiver. They should try to do that by putting forward sensible arguments. That procedure has worked as regards administration orders because, as the Minister told us, recent research has shown that in some 50 per cent of administrations a floating charge was in existence but the floating charge holder agreed--or at least did not veto--an administration order.
	I therefore reaffirm the point that I made in Committee: these provisions rewrite the bargain between the floating charge holders and companies and will deter lenders from making loans to small companies. That will be to the detriment of lenders and small companies. In contrast, there is no real benefit in delaying a floating charge holder appointing an administrative receiver. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are going over ground that we have covered already in the earlier stages of the Bill. I do not know that I have a great deal to add to what I said before but it is my duty to say it again.
	Our purpose in legislating for the option of a moratorium in the company voluntary arrangement procedure is to provide a short respite for the directors of a company to put a rescue plan to the company and its creditors free from the immediate threat of individual creditor action. Of course, if that can be agreed, it is good all round--not only for the creditors but for the employees, shareholders, directors and the wider economy. To allow an administrative receiver to be appointed or a floating charge to crystallise in the moratorium period would, in our view, be counter-productive.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I are talking the same language this time. Previously, I was talking about a floating charge holder and the noble Lord was talking about a debenture holder. I am grateful that we can use the same terminology.
	We see no good reason why a floating charge holder--which will often be a bank--should be exempted from the general stay. But let us look at the arguments that have been urged on us. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that floating charge holders might be severely prejudiced if they could not appoint an administrative receiver during the moratorium. We do not agree. Quite apart from the fact that the moratorium does not have any effect on security rights other than to stay them, the nominee has to be satisfied that a voluntary arrangement is likely to be agreed and implemented before a moratorium can be obtained. If the nominee is able to reach that conclusion, I simply cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that things will deteriorate so badly during the moratorium.
	If at some point during the moratorium the nominee concludes that a voluntary arrangement is not likely to be agreed, he is obliged immediately to withdraw his consent. The noble Lord returned to this point today: he said that the nominee might not bring the moratorium to an end and there would therefore have to be a costly application to the courts. The nominee has no choice in this matter. He would have to withdraw if he became aware that the charge holder fully intended to appoint a receiver at the end of the moratorium and he thought that that would scupper implementation of any agreed voluntary arrangement.
	I quoted the Cork committee; the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has done the same. But in the review that preceded the Insolvency Act 1985, the Cork committee recognised that the process of receivership could rescue businesses; but it also saw that possible rescues were lost when there was no floating charge holder to appoint a receiver to effect the rescue. As a consequence, the administration procedure came into existence but left in place the right to appoint a receiver where that was possible.
	I also said that research has shown that in some 50 per cent of administrations a floating charge does exist but the administration was agreed to--or not vetoed--by the floating charge holder. So what appeared to be an automatic preference of secured creditors for administrative receivership over administration has diminished over the years.
	I also wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that a bank will want to appoint an administrative receiver when there is a viable prospect of rescue. It would be contrary to the code of practice of the statement of principles of the British Bankers Association. That states that banks, which are usually the best placed creditor in terms of security,
	"will add [their] support to a rescue proposition which [they] believe will succeed".
	Then there is the question of the fate of the other stakeholders when an administrative receiver is appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to be content to leave that in the hands of the bank, but let us be clear about the role of an administrative receiver. He is appointed by the charge holder. His duty of care is primarily to the charge holder. His job is to get the best price for the assets and to pay the lender, regardless of where that leaves the company's employees, other creditors, directors or shareholders. Sometimes he will sell the company's business but it is rare for him actually to save the company. So if a plan can be agreed for the rescue of a company by means of a voluntary arrangement we are firmly of the view that this is more likely to result in a better outcome for all concerned than a receivership. We do not wish banks to be the ultimate arbiters of whether a company should be saved.
	Finally, it is strange to imagine that a voluntary arrangement procedure somehow takes place in a vacuum. We expect that in most cases the nominee will need to talk to the company's bankers, both before and during the moratorium. That may be in relation to funding during the moratorium. It will almost certainly be about their attitude to the rescue plan, and their interests will be taken into account by the nominee. But even if they were not, there is nothing to stop the bank making its views known to the nominee and challenging his decisions or actions, if appropriate. This is not some artificial process divorced from reality.
	I have to repeat, though I will avoid using the offensive word "wrecking", that if these amendments were accepted they would defeat the purpose of the proposed legislation.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, despite the compelling arguments advanced by the Opposition the Minister remains obdurate, indeed defiant. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 125.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("apply") and insert ("Paragraphs 16 to 22A").

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19 and 20. Opposition Amendment No. 11 is in the same group. These amendments should address the concerns of the Opposition that bona fide third parties should not have to check that certain preconditions have been met before dealing with a company which is subject to a moratorium; for example, that a disposal is for the benefit of the company. As I said in Committee, we also would not want third parties to be put off dealing with a company in a moratorium because of doubts about whether transactions entered into by the company will be valid and enforceable against that company. Therefore, we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 12 which provide that if a company enters into a transaction in breach of paragraphs 16 to 22, those transactions will still be valid and enforceable against the company. Those paragraphs deal with transactions such as disposals, payments and the obtaining of credit by a company during the moratorium.
	I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would mind me saying a few words about Amendment No. 11 at the same time. Although we recognise the concern, we consider that Amendment No. 11 does not go quite far enough. We consider it necessary to make it clear that not only transactions under paragraph 18, which Amendment 11 would provide, but also those under paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 to 22 are to be valid and enforceable against the company even if the provisions of those paragraphs have not been complied with.
	We have also provided by way of Amendment No. 14 that, first, market contracts and charges under Part VII of the Companies Act 1989 and, secondly, transfer orders and collateral security as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999 will also be valid and enforceable by as well as against the company, even though the company should not have entered into such a transaction in the first place. We have also provided that nothing done by or in pursuance of such a transaction is to be treated as done in contravention of paragraphs 12(1)(f), 14 or 16 to 22.
	Given that companies which are party to such types of transactions are effectively banned from entering into a moratorium, that may seem a somewhat strange provision. But we have concluded that it is possible that a company in a moratorium might just conceivably be able to enter into such a transaction. That being so, it is vital that it is valid and enforceable by all parties, even if entered into in contravention of the provisions of Schedule A1. It is also important that property subject to a market charge or collateral security charge cannot be dealt as if it were not subject to that security. Therefore, paragraph 20 has been disapplied. All of that is necessary to protect the integrity of the financial markets and ensure we are not in breach of our obligations under the EC Settlement Finality Directive.
	However, as companies are not supposed to enter into market contracts, give transfer orders, grant market charges or provide collateral security during a moratorium we have provided by means of Amendments Nos. 14 and 20 that if a company does enter into any such transaction when it should not, the company and its officers can be prosecuted. Amendment No. 19 is consequential on Amendment No. 20.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the Minister and to speak to Amendment No. 11. The Minister has accepted that it would be damaging to rescue attempts if third parties were reluctant to deal with a company which is in a moratorium because of doubts as to whether the contracts would be enforceable against the company. We are pleased that the Minister has responded to our concerns. We were particularly concerned in relation to Amendment No. 11 which we put forward in Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading. We feel that the matter has now been addressed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution on the group starting with Amendment No. 11. I forgot to speak to Amendment No. 13. Perhaps for the record I should say that Amendment No. 13 sets out more fully the two offences which are committed if a company, first, disposes of any of its property which is subject to a security without the consent of the holder of the security or leave of the court under paragraph 20 and otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the security; or, secondly, disposes of any goods in its possession under a hire purchase agreement without the consent of the owner of the goods or leave of the court under paragraph 20 and otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
	Page 15, line 28, at end insert--
	("(1A) The fact that a company enters into a transaction in contravention of any of paragraphs 16 to 22 does not--
	(a) make the transaction void, or
	(b) make it to any extent unenforceable against the company.").
	Page 15, leave out lines 29 to 35.
	Page 16, line 31, at end insert ("otherwise than in pursuance of an order of the court").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
	Page 16, line 47, at end insert ("otherwise than in pursuance of an order of the court").
	Page 18, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert--
	("(a) without any consent or leave under paragraph 20, disposes of any of its property which is subject to a security otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the security,
	(aa) without any consent or leave under paragraph 20, disposes of any goods in the possession of the company under a hire-purchase agreement otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or")
	Page 18, line 12, at end insert--

("Market contracts, etc.

22A.--(1) If the company enters into any transaction to which this paragraph applies--
	(a) the company is liable to a fine, and
	(b) if any officer of the company, without reasonable excuse, authorised or permitted the company to enter into the transaction, he is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
	(2) A company enters into a transaction to which this paragraph applies if it--
	(a) enters into a market contract,
	(b) gives a transfer order,
	(c) grants a market charge, or
	(d) provides any collateral security.
	(3) The fact that a company enters into a transaction in contravention of this paragraph does not--
	(a) make the transaction void, or
	(b) make it to any extent unenforceable by or against the company.
	(4) Where during the moratorium a company enters into a transaction to which this paragraph applies, nothing done by or in pursuance of the transaction is to be treated as done in contravention of paragraphs 12(1)(f), 14 or 16 to 22.
	(5) Paragraph 20 does not apply in relation to any property which is subject to a market charge or a collateral security charge.
	(6) In this paragraph, "transfer order", "collateral security" and "collateral security charge" have the same meanings as in the settlement finality regulations.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 22, line 43, at end insert ("but may only apply within 7 days of the decision taken by the creditors' meeting").

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we proposed a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister rejected the amendment because he said the timing of any application by a member of a company was not critical for the nominee or the supervisor. Therefore, there was no reason to restrict the time period during which a member of the company could make such an application. By contrast, at Report the Minister said there might be an advantage to having a cut-off point beyond which such applications could not be made. He said the Government would reflect and perhaps amend the Bill to that purpose. It may be that my amendment is otiose but we shall see. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have avoided using the offensive word "otiose" in respect of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has a good point with the amendment. I said so at Report. Perhaps I did not say so glowingly enough for his taste. He said in Committee that there should be a time limit on the ability of a member of a company to go to court if the decision of a creditors' meeting--which takes effect under paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2--differs from that made by the company meeting. We still take the view that that will normally be self-regulating. But we can see that there is an advantage in there being a cut-off point beyond which applications cannot be made. We shall be amending the Bill in another place to that purpose. We think that seven days is too short a period for a member to consider his position and make any application to the court which he considers appropriate under this paragraph. We think that a 28-day period would be more appropriate. However, I hope it will be thought that the coming together of minds is sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am more than content with the glowing support shown by the Minister for the principle lying behind the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
	Page 29, line 17, leave out ("and 22(1)") and insert ("22(1) and 22A(1)(a)").
	Page 30, line 14, at end insert--
	Chapter
	Short title
	Extent of repeal
	
		
			 ("Sch. A1, para. 22A(1)(a). Company entering into market contract, etc. 1. On indictment. 2. Summary. A fine. The statutory maximum. 
			 Sch. A1, para. 22A(1)(b). Authorising or permitting company to do so. 1. On indictment. 2. Summary. 2 years or a fine, or both. 6 months or the statutory maximum, or both.") 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Company voluntary arrangements]:
	[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 [Individual voluntary arrangements]:
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 30 not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kingsland and I believe that we have made considerable progress on a number of important issues in the Bill, although it continues to be our submission that, in a sense, the Bill's timing is somewhat premature. We thank the Minister for the positive way in which he has responded to a fair number of those issues. I wish also to pay tribute to and thank two people who have helped us; namely, Mr Peter Griffiths and Mr Bernard Weatherill QC, whose collective skill and considerable experience on this subject matter have been invaluable.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her words, which I reciprocate.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).--(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the Question is put, perhaps I may observe that it is now nearly a quarter to eight in the evening on the fourth day of the Committee stage. We were promised four days for consideration of the Bill and we now find ourselves on the fourth day dealing with it at a quarter to eight in the evening. It is a massive Bill, as all noble Lords know. I should like to protest in the mildest possible way that we should find ourselves dealing with it at this time of the evening.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord protesting in the mildest possible way. I understand his frustration. All of us would have preferred to start the proceedings on the Bill earlier. Regrettably, we are at that time of the year.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
	Clause 252 agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 372:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Road traffic strategy
	:TITLE3:ROAD TRAFFIC STRATEGY
	.--(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State (in respect of England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in respect of Wales), within one year of the coming into force of this Act, to prepare a strategy specifying an indicative level of road traffic for each year over the next ten years such that by the year 2010, total road traffic miles do not exceed 90 per cent. of the levels which apply on the day when this Act comes into force.
	(2) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult such persons as they see fit.
	(3) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall as soon as is practicable after its completion publish the strategy and take such steps as are in their opinion necessary to ensure that the indicative levels are met.
	(4) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall thereafter report from time to time on the progress of the strategy.
	(5) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may amend the strategy from time to time as they see fit to ensure that the indicative levels are met.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before I go any further, I confess that I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the wisdom of starting consideration of the Bill so late in the day. We shall be dealing with some important amendments. We shall try to be brief but sometimes it will not be possible to be brief because the issues raised in the amendments are complicated.
	Amendment No. 372 would introduce a new clause before Clause 253, which is the first clause in Part V of the Bill. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to prepare, within one year of the coming into force of this Act, a 10-year road safety strategy. The purpose of the strategy is a reduction of road traffic miles to 90 per cent of their current levels by the year 2010. It requires the two authorities to consult about the formation of the strategy, to take appropriate action to achieve the objectives of the strategy, to report on progress and to amend the strategy if necessary. The new clause is a refined and simplified version of the substantive clauses of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill which was introduced into this House in June 1998. Indeed, that Bill provided for other approaches to the problem of increasing road traffic to be adopted. This amendment is a continuation of that approach.
	I shall not go into the details of the argument which I deployed two years ago. We are all aware of the cost in environmental damage, reduction of quality of life and crowded roads and streets of the rising tide of traffic. Indeed, increasing prosperity has worsened all of these effects. The CPRE has suggested that traffic could double or even treble by the year 2025. It is enough to say that, in their recently issued 10-year plan for transport, with its return to a large package of road-building, the Government have emphasised the need to reduce congestion rather than what causes it. Unfortunately, road-building, even the building of by-passes which may offer temporary relief to hard-pressed villages and towns, does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of journeys made by private car or lorry and, more particularly, the length of such journeys. Indeed, they may contribute to the opposite--more and longer journeys by road.
	The new clause seeks to provide a mechanism to make reduction in the number and length of journeys by road one of the considerations which influences and informs government policy over the next 10 years. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said in moving the amendment. We on these Benches cannot support it. We regard the growth in traffic as being very much a consequence of the growth in the economy. We want to see good growth in the economy. To put an artificial target on it such as is proposed in the amendment would not be practical.

Lord Berkeley: What is proposed is a good idea, although I am not sure how practical it is in the short-term. It was interesting to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, thinks that the economy comes first and that traffic growth is inexorably linked to it. It is important to have a road traffic strategy even if the targets have to be reduced. Strategies are important. I am looking forward to strategies for the railways, which we have not had until now. There is no reason why there should not be a strategy for road traffic as well.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has called for an absolute reduction in the national volume of traffic to 90 per cent of its current level. When we responded to the first report on the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act, we indicated, as we did again in the 10-year plan, that we wished to slow the rate of growth of traffic. In some places there may need to be an absolute reduction in the rate of traffic. Concentration on the national volume of traffic is not a good measure of the success of a transport policy; nor is it what people are worried about. People are concerned about congestion and pollution. We have therefore framed our objectives in those terms, both in our report, Tackling Congestion and Pollution, on the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act and in the 10-year plan.
	That plan, in particular, sets out the outcomes that we expect to achieve. We seek to see a reduction, for example, in the contribution of road traffic to air pollution to be cut by around half, principally through cleaner fuels and vehicles but also through traffic management. Savings in carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector will make a significant contribution towards meeting climate change targets. Similarly, on congestion, with the investment to be made in alternative forms of transport and other measures contained in the plan, we seek to reduce congestion to below current levels, in particular in our largest cities where it is most severe--even when the total volume of national traffic is rising.
	We believe that we should focus on air quality, health, road safety and the levels of greenhouse gases rather than on the absolute national volume of traffic. One of the objectives as regards the inter-urban network and large urban areas contained in the 10-year plan is the target of reducing congestion to below present levels by 2010.
	We have set out our strategies for carrying these forward. We believe that that will be a better way to progress, rather than to aim for a simplistic national target that relates to volume rather than outcome. We have set that out clearly at least twice in government documents. The National Assembly for Wales came to similar conclusions, which it published in February. For those reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the national volume targets. The targets I have outlined are already built into our national transport plans.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support for the general principle of setting a target for traffic reduction or, to put it another way, for the control of traffic growth. This is only one way of putting that ambition into a legislative mode but it may not even be the best way.
	Our view is that it is necessary to adopt an overall approach to traffic reduction within which local authorities can relate to national aims and ambitions. I believe that merely seeking to solve congestion on the urban and inter-urban road network--which in most cases would mean simply building more space for cars to travel on--is not necessarily a way of reducing pollution, for example. It may even contribute to a slowdown in the reduction of pollution which is being achieved by other means. It is hoped that we shall see a transfer of journeys, not only those made by freight but also of passenger journeys, from the motor car to other, less polluting modes of transport.
	I shall not press my amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 373:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Inshore shipping services
	:TITLE3:INSHORE SHIPPING SERVICES
	.--(1) The Secretary of State may enter into agreements or other arrangements--
	(a) for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development by others of any inshore shipping services or maritime assets, or
	(b) for any purpose relating to inshore shipping services.
	(2) Agreements or other arrangements entered into under this section may provide for the Secretary of State--
	(a) to make grants or other payments or loans,
	(b) to give guarantees, or
	(c) to invest in bodies corporate,
	on such terms and subject to any such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall not enter into agreements or other arrangements under this section for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development in Scotland of--
	(a) services for the carriage of cargo by sea,
	(b) facilities for or in connection with the carriage of cargo by sea or the loading or unloading of cargo carried or intended to be carried by sea,
	if the Scottish Ministers have power to do so.
	(4) In this section--
	"facilities" includes vessels, pilotage, buoyage, harbours, piers, jetties, equipment for embarcation and dis-embarcation and equipment for loading and unloading cargo;
	"inshore shipping" includes coastal, island to mainland, inter-island, canal, navigable river, loch, lough and lake.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, I wish to table this amendment which was drafted by my noble friend. The concept behind the amendment and the wording have been developed from Clause 210 which makes provision for financial assistance for the purposes of railway assets and services.
	The Bill is silent on the question of shipping and waterway traffic; it ought not to be. The Bill's Long Title states simply that it seeks to make provision for transport. At present it covers air, rail and road transport. We are left to wonder why sea and waterway transport has been left out. This amendment would fill that gap by establishing that the Secretary of State and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers may make grants to improve sea and waterway facilities for freight and in consequence for passenger services.
	This will be extremely useful among the various islands and island groups that make up the United Kingdom. Living, working and trying to secure a strong economy are difficult enough in terms of remoteness, sparsity of population and distance from markets in those areas without adding the avoidable burden of inadequate freight and passenger facilities and services. The redevelopment of coastal shipping has the merit of removing substantial bulk loads from the road network. A new movement of timber from Argyll to Irvine by sea is an example of this. The same could also be true of the redevelopment of waterway traffic. We were pleased to read recently that the British Waterways Board has announced the new construction of a 19-mile canal in eastern England, the first to be built since 1810.
	Those providing such forms of transport are also pleased with this amendment. They have made the point that more bulk goods could be transported by waterways, and thus come off the roads, if only the higher costs of waterway transport could be mitigated. The removal of bulk transport from the roads is a much sought-after objective and could be delivered in some areas by assistance with the costs of a modal shift to waterway transport. The improvement of piers and jetties, which would be enabled by the amendment, is vital to maintaining populations in the islands and, indeed, in some remote areas of the mainland.
	The provision of freight facilities grants for sea and waterway transport will add to the effectiveness of the Bill and are exactly parallel to the freight grants awarded to similar kinds of facilities to serve the rail freight industry.
	I had an interesting meeting with a councillor from the Isle of Wight who brought to my attention the cost of travel from the Isle of Wight to the mainland. It is only a short distance but the journey costs £9 return. That is a considerable sum for a pensioner who perhaps needs regularly to visit a doctor or hospital on the other side of that short sea journey. In that context, it would be interesting to see if it would be possible to extend the provisions of the half-fare bus pass to that kind of pedestrian ferry service. Such ferry services are similar to the bus services to be provided through quality transport partnerships under the Bill.
	I have covered only two of the many different advantages that might be gained by this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Many people thought that I would oppose this amendment, but that is not the case. I support it and I have added my name to it.
	This is a good amendment. It is not before time that the islands and not so inland waterways are brought within the scope of grants. The amendment does not separate the use to which the transport would be put; namely, between passengers and freight, whereas Amendment No. 426A in the same grouping does make that distinction. I was not absolutely sure whether the noble Baroness wished to suggest whether passengers should be included in the provision. There may be other ways of supporting passengers. Indeed, I believe that that is already the case in Scotland. However, the Bill does not cover Scotland and so that is not relevant.
	Agreements of this kind would certainly be necessary for freight. It is already allowed for, of course, on inland waterways. I am told that in Scotland grants are available for inland waterway travel between the Mull of Kintyre and Ayr. That must be a very wide inland waterway and no doubt sometimes rather rough.
	Basically, we need to examine, in comparison with rail freight, the number of road/lorry miles that might be saved. Some interesting calculations would need to be made as regards working out the correct ferry or sea miles. It is also important to recognise that the provisions should apply not only to islands such as the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Man and across to Northern Ireland but also to services along the coast. There is no reason why timber should not be transported from Aberdeen to the south of England by sea rather than by road or rail. So the competitive situation would have to be examined.
	I should be unhappy if the provision were extended to apply across the North Sea to mainland European countries. I do not think that is the plan. It would introduce further questions of competition that would need to be looked at. Apart from that, the important point is to make sure the grants--presumably either for capital expenditure or operating costs, or a combination of the two--retain the same flexibility but also the same competitive edge against road freight as is the case with rail freight.
	I hope that my noble friend will look with favour on this proposal. We have received many messages of support from the ports industry. I support the amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister replies, it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I point out that inshore shipping includes coastal; island to mainland; inter-island; canal; navigable river, loch and lake. It does not include journeys across the North Sea or the Channel.

Lord Elder: I should like to speak to the other two amendments in the group standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Goudie. Amendment No. 426A covers the same general ground as Amendment No. 373, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
	There will be enormous environmental benefits if we succeed in taking freight off the roads. The freight facility grant currently does that by encouraging a switch to rail or to inland waterways. The amendments would extend that to coastal and short-sea shipping. As I understand it, they would cover services around the UK and between the UK and Europe. Support for short-sea shipping is a declared objective of the European Commission.
	The amendments cover reserved matters; so they would cover trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK but not wholly within Scotland, which would be a matter for the Scottish Executive.
	Congestion on roads is already leading to a reassessment of the benefits of water travel, and that reassessment is to be encouraged. The amendment seeks to do exactly that; and it is to be hoped that it will encourage more operators to make the switch.
	For the sake of simplicity, the amendments combine all water-related grants into one, putting coastal short-sea shipping and inland waterways together. Under the amendments, both capital and non-capital grants could be made, which would provide a good deal of flexibility. As grants are paid only when an actual shift is made from roads, I believe that the proposal would prove both efficient and effective.
	Amendment No. 427A repeals the relevant part of the Railways Act 1993. I believe that together the amendments would succeed in assisting some shift from roads to other, more environmentally friendly forms of transport and are therefore to be encouraged. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to them.

Baroness Goudie: I support my noble friend Lord Elder and the other speakers. I declare an interest as an adviser on shipping to Clydeport. If the amendment were accepted, we should be able to see much more traffic shifted off the roads. It would ensure that short-sea shipping was able to take container goods from Glasgow to Southampton, and then on to the main ships, from Grangemouth to Felixstowe, on to the main mother ships and out to Europe and other parts of the world. That would make a great improvement to the environment. Therefore, I hope that we shall receive government support for these proposals.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am interested in these two amendments. Amendment No. 373 would appear to cover the Isle of Wight--I declare an interest as a resident. However, the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, would appear not to cover the Isle of Wight, or indeed any other island, because the wording in subsection (1) is, "rather than by road". Obviously, there is no road alternative for the Isle of Wight, or indeed the Scottish islands. The only way to get there is by ship--as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is well aware and as he rather foolishly said the other day.
	I have one or two questions for the Minister on the amendments. If the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, is acceptable to the Government, there is a question of what the Treasury calls dead-weight; that is to say, you do not want to subsidise a service that is already happening. How would the Government deal with that situation?
	In principle, we support the movement of more freight by sea, whether on inland waterways or up and down the coast. But that is already happening to some extent with certain commodities such as fuel, oil and heavy bulk aggregates. So we need to be certain that the Treasury will not end up subsidising services that are already under way.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the rail freight grant covers that situation? The two conditions before a grant can be obtained are: first, that there must be environmental benefits, up to so much for motorway miles; and, secondly, that the traffic is not presently operating and could not do so without a subsidy. Does the noble Lord agree that similar wording would cover this matter?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is precisely my point; it is why I question the reference in the amendment. The traffic should not already be a viable proposition, operated commercially, as is the case with rail freight.
	I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that the Isle of Wight has doctors and hospitals at present. Many of the residents there are well satisfied with the services that they receive.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Government made a commitment in their integrated transport White Paper and in their shipping daughter document to extend the application of the freight facilities grant regime to coastal and short-sea shipping. The freight facilities grant scheme is an environmental grant designed to encourage the transfer of freight from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The current grant scheme covers railways and inland waterways but not shipping. Amendment No. 373 provides for a general grant to be made available for inshore shipping services and maritime assets.
	The amendment is restricted to inshore shipping services and, therefore, does not include short-sea shipping services such as those operating between the UK and Europe. Nor does it focus clearly on a key issue for the Government of encouraging the transfer of freight from road to water. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but we cannot support the proposed amendment.
	However, the Government are able to support Amendments Nos. 426A and 427A. The intention of the new clause in Amendment No. 426A is to extend the current freight facilities grant scheme to coastal and international shipping. Services operating to the rest of Europe, as well as around the UK, would be eligible for grant. It will constitute a general "water transport" grant scheme by also including inland waterways which are currently provided for in Section 140 of the Railways Act 1993.
	The clause also requires that freight traffic must be transferred from road to water, thus ensuring an environmental benefit as a condition for the payment of grant. I hope that that explains why the Treasury would have its concern focused on the environmental benefit and would not judge the matter simply in regard to any dead-weight implications.
	The clause will also allow the payment of grant for capital and non-capital costs and provide flexibility to enable the grant to be paid to shipping companies, ports, consignors, consignees and navigation authorities. The powers of the Secretary of State will include only reserved matters. Therefore, the National Assembly for Wales will continue to have power to administer inland waterway grants in Wales, and Scottish Ministers will have power to administer inland waterway grants and grants for eligible shipping services that operate wholly within Scotland. I am pleased to say that Scottish Ministers support this amendment. The Secretary of State will also have power to grant-aid eligible services from and to Northern Ireland. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The wording does not cover passage to the Isle of Wight. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, agrees that Amendments Nos. 426A and 427A go a long way to meet her objectives and that she will withdraw her amendment.

Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may raise one matter. First, my noble friend said that the grant could apply to shipping to mainland Europe but not the Isle of Wight. Does it apply only if there is an alternative road route? The position appears to be slightly odd. What about the Isle of Man which also does not have a road alternative? Secondly, on what is the grant calculated? I suppose that if one received a grant for a journey from Grangemouth, to which my noble friend Lady Goudie referred earlier, to Rotterdam the alternative route would be through the Channel Tunnel, which would have a cost, and by road for the rest of the way. Is that the environmental road alternative?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not understand how the grant can possibly apply to shipping across the North Sea and to the Scottish islands, as the Minister implied, but not to the Isle of Wight and, presumably, the Isles of Scilly. If that is so, there will be a serious English rebellion. The amendment reads "rather than by road". There is no road alternative to the Isle of Wight, the Isles of Scilly or the Isle of Man; nor is there a road alternative across the North Sea or the English Channel. Either it applies to places where there is a road alternative or it does not. The answer to that question must be fairly straightforward.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The point that I sought to make was that freight for the Isle of Wight would travel by road to ports either side of a short ferry journey to the island, so the effect would be the same. However, I confess that I do not speak from great certainty. I shall confirm the detail and write to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister. There is a considerable argument in the Isle of Wight about the cost of the ferry. If it is to be subsidised by the Government that is a major policy move. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of that. We should like to know the answer to that question, especially as we approach Cowes Week.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We have had an interesting exchange. I am delighted that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, finds favour with the Government. However, it does not go as far as our amendment. The amendment does nothing to mitigate the cost of passenger transport by sea when that is the only means of travel available to people. In most cases, if one lives in any of the Scottish islands, the Isle of Wight, or any other island off the coast of this country, one cannot reach the mainland except by sea. That is the point of part of our amendment. It was in that context that I quoted the problem experienced by my friend Morris Barton in relation to the cost of the "bus" from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. That service costs a great deal more than other bus services and does not offer half-fares. Some people must make the crossing for the purposes of attending hospital or their place of work. Everyone must pay the full fare. I should be interested to know whether the Government would consider the provision of the same kind of concessionary fare scheme on that service as on bus services on land. I shall not take up any further time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 253 and 254 agreed to.
	Schedule 29 [Detention of vehicles used without operator's licence]:
	[Amendments Nos. 374 to 376 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 377:
	Page 322, line 45, leave out from ("informing") to ("that") in line 46 and insert ("the registered keeper or other persons who may be entitled to the goods vehicle").

Earl Attlee: Before I speak to or move any amendments I should declare some interests. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and I own a rather large transporter that resides in the REME Museum in Bordon. That vehicle can be operated only under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	I am grateful to the Minister for including the provisions of my impounding Bill in this Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to seek an assurance from the Minister that when the Bill is implemented and he drafts regulations he will pay attention to the needs of the vehicle hire and leasing industry. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was very helpful during the passage of my Private Member's Bill. I hope that the Minister can be just as helpful. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 377, which deals with hire companies, is an attempt by the noble Earl to extend further the impounding provisions which he was instrumental in inserting into the Bill in another place. However, it raises the particular issue of vehicle hire companies. An impounding scheme would need to encourage vehicle hire companies as well as consignors and insurers to ensure the use of legitimate hauliers. It is true that it is the users of hired vehicles who are required to have operator licences, not the rental companies. A rental company that does not check that a person who hires one of its vehicles has an operator licence runs the risk of having the vehicle detained. I do not, however, suggest that a hire company which has had a vehicle impounded in this way should have no means of recovering it.
	My department has held discussions on this matter with the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. The Bill provides for the making of regulations. If the vehicle is being operated illegally without the owner's knowledge the latter can recover the vehicle on notification. However, that is a matter of detail that is best left to regulations. There will be wide consultation before regulations are laid before Parliament. I believe that the point which the noble Earl seeks to make in the amendment will be covered in those regulations and that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to that effect.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. It is clear that the hire companies will have to change their procedure; otherwise, they will find themselves in difficulty. I recall that during the passage of my Private Member's Bill I hired a small tipper truck. The hire company, although reputable, made no attempt to find out whether I required an operator licence. It may be necessary in future to make rapid changes to vehicle holdings because the impounding arrangements eliminate the margin scheme. One can still have more vehicles on one's licence and not use them but one must notify a vehicle before one uses it. By the time the legislation is implemented will it be possible to notify changes in vehicle holdings electronically?

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will know that we are moving towards electronic licensing of vehicles. I am not sure when this particular passage comes into force. However I suspect that electronic licensing will not be in force by then. But we are moving towards electronic licensing and therefore within a few months, or perhaps a year, that will be the situation.

Earl Attlee: It is to be hoped that electronic notification of vehicle changes will be implemented rapidly. Otherwise we shall be behind the power curve.
	The Minister also referred to "wide consultation". I hope that it will not take too long. When the provision is on the statute book it will need to be implemented as rapidly as possible for obvious reasons. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment Nos. 378 to 381 not moved.]
	Schedule 29 agreed to.
	Clause 255 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 382 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 382A:
	After Clause 255, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OPERATORS' LICENCES: GOOD REPUTE
	(" .--(1) Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (qualifications for standard licence) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 2 after "shall" there is inserted "except in exceptional circumstances".
	(3) After paragraph 2(b) there is inserted--
	"(c) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that he knew or suspected were illegally claiming unemployment benefits; or
	(d) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that were illegally claiming unemployment benefits and has failed to take suitable measures to ascertain whether or not they were claiming benefits or to remit national insurance deductions to the Contributions Agency."").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 382A I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 389A, 387 and 388. These amendments deal with closely related issues. The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act provides for two types of licence to operate goods vehicles: standard and restricted. A restricted licence prevents use for hire and reward. In order to be granted a standard licence an applicant has to be of good repute, professionally competent and have the appropriate financial standing. An applicant for a restricted licence need fill none of these requirements.
	My original amendments removed the distinction between the two types of licence. Therefore an applicant would need to meet all the conditions. However, I was tactfully briefed against this.
	Amendment No. 387 inserts the requirement for the applicant of a restricted licence to be professionally competent. In other words, he needs to have a properly qualified transport manager.
	It is probably worth remembering that even operators of rubbish skip lorries normally require only a restricted licence. There will be some obvious difficulties that the Minister will draw to the Committee's attention. He will refer no doubt to the small operators who have only one or two vehicles. I think that the concept of the amendment could be developed so that a suitable trade association could provide the top cover of a transport manager. Therefore it would not be necessary for a small organisation to have a fully qualified transport manager. They would just have to have access to that knowledge. The trade association could send bulletins to people subscribing to their services.
	Amendment No. 388 inserts a requirement for all operators of goods vehicles to be of good repute. I cannot understand why the Minister would be happy for anyone who is not of good repute to operate a goods vehicle.
	Amendments Nos. 382A and 389A provide that a goods vehicle operator must lose his good repute if he knowingly employs drivers illegally claiming benefits. At practically every multi-agency check of goods vehicles, employed and self-employed drivers are detected illegally claiming benefits. It is despicable for an employer to do that. It cannot be done accidentally and therefore the operator's good repute should be forfeited.
	It sometimes seems to me to be unduly difficult for an operator to lose his good repute. This amendment deals with only one particular scam. There are many more. I believe in minimum regulation for those who will operate legally within the industry, and removal for those who will not. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: I support what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. He referred to the fact that many scams are detected, for example, at multi-agency checks. This is just one that I have witnessed. It is not an occasional offence. It is a regular offence, as is using a vehicle which is running on red diesel. I recently saw a vehicle which had two filler caps in the diesel tank: one on the outside which contained white diesel; the majority of the tank contained red diesel which was filled from another cap. Anybody found doing that should be barred from the industry. I support the amendment regarding the claiming of unemployment benefit. It is obviously done with the knowledge of the owner and operator of the vehicle.

Lord Berkeley: The Committee will be pleased to know that I shall not support every one of the amendments of noble Earl, Lord Attlee. However, when this Bill started in another place there were no substantive clauses on road transport. It is due to his perseverance that we have tabled a good raft of amendments tonight, which, taken in total, would make enormous improvements in the legal operations and safety of the road freight industry. I recognise that this was part of the Government's policy. The recommendation in the Commission for Integrated Transport Report was 44 tons as an essential prerequisite. I shall return to that in Amendment No. 412. With his wide-ranging knowledge, the noble Earl has done the House a great service in putting down such an excellent range of amendments.

Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 386, which is in this group of amendments, although it does not reflect exactly the same issues as in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. That amendment concerns undertakings given by operators to traffic commissioners, but not the original undertakings which they give as a condition of their original licence, where a traffic commissioner may grant a licence and may attach a condition. I refer to undertakings which are given to a traffic commissioner at a hearing in the traffic commissioner's court where an operator has been called in to the court to see the traffic commissioner usually because the maintenance arrangements of his vehicles are not up to standard.
	That operator may give a verbal or a written undertaking at that time to the effect that he is, for example, employing a proper maintenance foreman, will keep proper records and will do various things to ensure that the failings in the maintenance of his vehicles are rectified. Unfortunately, as I understand the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, undertakings given subsequent to the granting of the licence are not regarded as part of the licence, and therefore if that failing is repeated the licence is not automatically at risk.
	That is a weakness in the law. It was referred to in the Standing Committee in another place and there was an exchange between my honourable friend Mr Foster, and the Minister, Mr Hill. No conclusion was reached, although Mr Foster was complimented for raising the point, which the Minister said interested him greatly.
	This is an important point and it affects the whole safety of road haulage. Can the Government now tell us whether they are able to amend the regulations? When an operator who is called in at a disciplinary hearing gives an undertaking--and he is giving that undertaking voluntarily as a result of being found wanting--can we then be sure that that will be recorded in such a way that should the same failing occur again the licence of that operator is automatically at risk? I am sure that that would be the case both in railway and air travel and I believe that it ought to extend to road travel, where far more people are killed and injured.

Lord Whitty: I join my noble friend Lord Berkeley in commending the noble Earl on his activity in this regard and for the amendments which have appeared in another place. We are focusing on transport tonight and I want to put on record my gratitude to the road haulage industry. This morning, in my noble friend's absence I chaired a meeting before the Select Committee. We had a constructive discussion with the trade associations and trade unions on issues such as enforcement. Many of the issues are being faced in that context probably for the first time.
	As regards the noble Earl's amendment and the issue of deciding whether an applicant is of good repute, at present the commissioners must take into account the criminal convictions of the operator and his employees, including road transport offences, and any previous conduct in relation to the operation of vehicles as part of a business. Once a licence has been granted the operator must continue to satisfy the good repute requirement throughout the time he holds the licence. Operators can face the suspension or revocation of their licence by the traffic commissioner if they do not.
	The legislation is particularly firm where an individual has been convicted of road transport offences or more than one serious offence. In such circumstances, the commissioner must revoke the operator's licence. The first part of the proposed amendment would allow the traffic commissioner to waive this requirement in "exceptional circumstances". That is not an appropriate form of words. Indeed, the existing provisions of the regulations implement the requirements of an EC directive which provides no derogation that would allow us to give the transport commissioner powers to waive the requirement for more than one serious offence. Therefore, the amendments would result in a breach of the UK's Community obligations. In any event, we believe that the situation covered by the amendment is already tight enough within the existing provisions. If anything, his amendment would dilute them.
	In other respects, the existing discretionary powers of the traffic commissioner concerning good repute are already wide-ranging. The commissioner may take into account "all the relevant evidence" concerning the conduct of the holder of an operator's licence of any of his employees.
	To determine effectively whether an operator is of good repute, the traffic commissioner must have powers to take into account any evidence of misconduct that to him appears relevant. The existing legislation does that already. It enables him, for example, to consider offences such as benefit fraud, to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. In view of that, I believe that Amendments Nos. 382A and 389A are unnecessary because sufficient powers already exist.
	Amendments Nos. 387 and 388 relate to the position of restricted licences. I believe that the UK is the only country in the EU which has a system of restricted licence for own-account hauliers. Other member states do not licence them in this way. The requirements for own-account operators in the UK are therefore already more stringent than anywhere else in Europe. We have no evidence that the restricted licence holders are any less professional or run their vehicles in a less safe manner. Making it mandatory, for example, for restricted licence holders to hold a certificate of professional competence, or to employ a transport manager with that qualification, would present a significant burden on the high proportion of restricted licence holders that are small businesses.
	Restricted licence holders must already prove to a traffic commissioner that they are fit to hold a licence and can run their vehicles safely and within the law. I am therefore not convinced that there is a sufficient case for seeking those changes.
	I understand what lies behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He is concerned that any undertakings should be taken into account by a traffic commissioner when he considers that they are material to the granting of a licence. Undertakings which are given on occasions that cannot be recorded on the licence therefore present a problem. If undertakings which are recorded on a licence are breached, the traffic commissioner may take disciplinary action. That gives the traffic commissioner wide powers.
	The amendment is designed to take action if any undertakings, wherever they are given by the operator, are breached. Unfortunately, I do not believe that his amendment does that. It still refers to undertakings being recorded on the licence and does not appear to allow for the recording on the licence of any undertakings given subsequent to the granting of the original application, even, for example, at a disciplinary inquiry. There is a need for clarity concerning the status of undertakings given by and agreed with the licence holder, otherwise there would be frequent disputes as to whether something which had been said or written amounted to a formal undertaking. The status of the present regulations, and his amendment, would not relate to undertakings outside those which could be recorded, but the legislation more broadly requires the traffic commissioner to take note of the undertakings. Because they are not recorded on the licence there is not the same degree of automaticity as there will be for those recorded at the point of granting the licence. Nevertheless, I believe that existing legislation and regulation already covers that point.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply but I do not find it satisfactory. There is clear evidence of disputes as to whether undertakings given subsequent to the granting of a licence are on the record in such a way that they can properly be taken into account. There is disputation.
	I readily accept that my wording may not be of the best, but I do not believe that it is impossible between now and another stage for someone to see whether the words can be altered to make a small but necessary amendment in the interests of road safety and clarity. The enforcement authorities and the hauliers will then clearly understand where they are. We must do away with the artificial distinction between undertakings given at the time of granting the licence and subsequent undertakings given, for example, following an inspection of maintenance facilities.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who spoke to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned red diesel and special modifications to the tank. That is a another good example of the possible automatic loss of good repute. The Customs and Excise detector vehicles have a specially modified fuel system and they normally impound straightaway.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke of undertakings. The point he was making was that they are made voluntarily in order to retain the licence because it appeared to the operator as though the traffic commissioner was about to withdraw it.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his kind words. We shall wait and see how we get on with his Amendment No. 412.
	I thank the Minister for his reply, but the principle we are debating is the automatic loss of good repute. I am suggesting that we should be tougher than the system which obtains in the rest of Europe. I am a little disappointed in that the Minister did not pick up any of the suggestions. I shall read his reply carefully and I am sure that we shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 383 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendment No. 384 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 385:
	After Clause 255, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES: LICENCE CONDITIONS
	(" . In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted--
	"(dd) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local public road network for the establishment of such a centre."").

Lord Bradshaw: In moving Amendment No. 385, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 390. Amendment No. 385 relates to goods vehicle operating centres and Amendment No. 390 refers to centres from which buses are operated. Again, these matters were referred to in Standing Committee E in another place.
	The amendments place on the traffic commissioner the responsibility for ensuring that the local road network which leads to and from a proposed operating centre is suitable for the purpose of the operation of goods vehicles or, indeed, buses. However, we need to ensure that the traffic commissioner's duties are expanded in that way. I take as an example North Yorkshire. When the matter was raised in another place, we were told that the local planning authorities had sufficient powers to control those activities and that, therefore, there was no need to extend the traffic commissioner's powers to take into account the local highway network.
	I am told that in North Yorkshire applications often fall between the county council as a highway authority, the district council as a planning authority and the traffic commissioner. The traffic commissioner may examine a farmyard. He can see that the facilities exist to maintain the lorries properly. He can look at the lane leading from the farmyard to the road and check that it is wide enough and suitable for driving heavy goods vehicles. However, if the farmyard abuts a country lane which is quite unsuitable for driving heavy goods vehicles, there is absolutely nothing that the traffic commissioner can do.
	I am told that in North Yorkshire often the premises are ones to which HGVs occasionally come and go. The premises may be an established user. It may not necessarily be a vehicle operating centre, but vehicles come and go to the site to make deliveries. The local authorities find that in planning terms they cannot turn down the access to such a place because it is an established user, and the traffic commissioner has no power to say that it is not a suitable place from which to run a haulage business.
	The amendment seeks merely to say that the traffic commissioner, who is an expert in lorry sizes, lorry weights and so on, should be able to take into account whether or not the lane or road is suitable for heavy vehicles.
	I have received many letters from various parts of the country where people's lives are being made an absolute misery. Roads are being smashed to pieces and the verges cut back because heavy vehicles are being operated to and from places which are unsuitable for modern haulage operations. It seems to me that a judgment as to the suitability of a road is a matter which comes very much within the purview of a traffic commissioner. He knows what type of vehicles are in question and he knows their height, width and other features.
	Amendment No. 390 seeks to insert a similar clause but deals with buses. Again, it states that if an operating centre is set up for a bus, the centre should be suitable for that purpose. In this case, the problem arises from a number of buses being kept almost at the roadside, much to the annoyance of people in the vicinity when the vehicles are started up early in the morning. Again, it seems that because this is essentially a transport matter the traffic commissioner is best fitted to judge whether the premises are suitable.
	I ask Ministers to consider carefully whether this small extension to traffic commissioners' duties, which, by the way, the traffic commissioners want, should be granted to them. Professionally, they are by far the most competent people to discharge that duty. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I support both amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I have also received many representations about unsuitable lorries and buses on local roads. I suppose that that is not surprising when farmers find that their financial situation is not so good as it used to be. They have many outbuildings and occasionally lorries will arrive for delivery or collection of grains which, obviously, must go by road. I believe that irritation arises when that activity is converted into a business.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, serious problems are caused with regard to quality of life and, most importantly, to road safety. I believe that particular problems arise in some of the more outlying parts of the country; for example, in Devon, Cornwall and probably Kent. East Anglia also has a similar problem with regard to roads. I believe that these two small amendments could make life a great deal easier for local residents by improving the quality of life in the countryside.

Earl Attlee: I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I am slightly concerned as to where new operators are to locate affordable premises as operating centres.

Lord Whitty: I understand the problem to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refer. However, we must be clear as to what is the appropriate role for the traffic commissioners, the highways authority and the planning authority. The noble Lord refers to North Yorkshire where, he claims, matters fall between three stools. However, we are considering the effect of generated traffic on the road system. That is an issue faced frequently by both highways authorities and planning authorities. The two tiers of government deal with such problems all the time, not only in the case of transport operations but in relation to factories and other planning permissions. I believe that it is inappropriate to put that type of problem on to the traffic commissioners when essentially they are issues which relate to planning, traffic and roads. The traffic commissioners have a wide range of duties to perform in assessing whether an operating centre is suitable. Basically, those duties relate to the business, safety and environmental effects on the vicinity and on the residents. I believe that it would be extending their duties too far if they were asked to take on what are essentially planning functions. Those are matters for local planning authorities.
	Amendment No. 390 effectively seeks to apply similar criteria to the siting of operating centres for PSVs as apply in relation to goods vehicles. That is a different situation. I accept that at present traffic commissioners have no powers to refuse to grant a PSV licence on the basis of the adequacy of an operating centre. I recognise the logic that lies behind the noble Lord's amendment in trying to establish an equivalent in relation to goods vehicles.
	However, again, when local authorities determine applications for planning permission, they have powers under the town and country planning legislation to take account of the wider issues of the possible problems created by goods vehicles on the highway network. Powers also exist under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict particular types of vehicle from using local roads on environmental grounds.
	Again, I believe that the local authorities are best placed to take decisions on those issues. Their current powers are sufficient to address the concerns in relation to bus operating centres in the local area. Therefore, I believe that it is not appropriate to extend the traffic commissioners' powers in that respect; nor is it appropriate to establish an equivalence between what are a relatively small number of bus operating centres and the provisions which apply to even a one-lorry operating centre for HGV businesses. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply, which again I find extremely disappointing. If an application is made for a licence, the traffic commissioner has to go and inspect the premises and the road leading from the yard to the main road. It seems to me that he is the best qualified person to judge environmental and safety issues, which he is required to do as a matter of course.
	The Minister's disappointing answer will be bitterly resented in many country areas, where such traffic causes great distress. I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there are plenty of places on industrial estates and elsewhere where haulage businesses can and should be located. I am concerned about their location in patently unsuitable areas down narrow country lanes.
	I am very disappointed by the Minister's answer and I may come back to the issue, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 386 to 390 not moved.]
	Clause 256 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 391:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Enforcement of requirements relating to drivers' hours
	:TITLE3:ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DRIVERS' HOURS
	. After section 99 of the Transport Act 1968 there is inserted--
	"Power to prohibit driving of vehicle.
	99A.--(1) If--
	(a) the driver of a UK vehicle obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his powers under subsection (2) or (3) of section 99 of this Act or fails to comply with any requirement made by an authorised person under subsection (1) of that section,
	(b) it appears to an authorised person that, in relation to a UK vehicle or its driver, there has been a contravention of any of the provisions of--
	(i) sections 96 to 98 of this Act and any orders or regulations under those sections, or
	(ii) the applicable Community rules,
	or that there will be such a contravention if the vehicle is driven on a road, or
	(c) it appears to an authorised person that an offence under section 99(5) of this Act has been committed in respect of a UK vehicle or its driver,
	the authorised person may prohibit the driving of the vehicle on a road either for a specified period or without limitation of time.
	(2) Where an authorised person prohibits the driving of a vehicle under this section, he may also direct the driver to remove the vehicle (and, if it is a motor vehicle drawing a trailer, also to remove the trailer) to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction; and the prohibition shall not apply to the removal of the vehicle in accordance with that direction.
	(3) On imposing a prohibition under subsection (1) of this section, the authorised person shall give notice in writing of the prohibition to the driver of the vehicle, specifying the circumstances (as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection) in consequence of which the prohibition is imposed and stating whether it is imposed only for a specified period (and if so specifying the period) or without limitation of time.
	(4) Any direction under subsection (2) of this section may be given--
	(a) in the notice under subsection (3) of this section, or
	(b) in a separate notice in writing given to the driver of the vehicle.
	(5) In this section--
	"authorised person" means--
	(a) an examiner appointed by the Secretary of State under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or
	(b) a constable authorised to act for the purposes of this section by or on behalf of a chief officer of police;
	"UK vehicle" means a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.
	Duration and removal of prohibition.
	99B.--(1) Subject to any exemption granted under subsection (2) of this section, a prohibition under subsection (1) of section 99A of this Act shall come into force as soon as notice of it has been given in accordance with subsection (3) of that section and shall continue in force--
	(a) until it is removed under subsection (3) of this section, or
	(b) in the case of a prohibition imposed for a specified period, until it is removed under that subsection or that period expires, whichever first occurs.
	(2) Where notice of a prohibition has been given under section 99A(3) of this Act in respect of a vehicle, an exemption in writing for the use of the vehicle in such manner, subject to such conditions and for such purposes as may be specified in the exemption may be granted by any authorised person.
	(3) A prohibition under section 99A(1) of this Act may be removed by any authorised person, if he is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken to remove or remedy the circumstances (as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 99A(1) of this Act) in consequence of which the prohibition was imposed; and on doing so the authorised person shall give notice in writing of the removal of the prohibition to the driver of the vehicle.
	(4) In this section, "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 99A of this Act.
	Failure to comply with prohibition.
	99C. Any person who--
	(a) drives a vehicle on a road in contravention of a prohibition imposed under section 99A(1) of this Act,
	(b) causes or permits a vehicle to be driven on a road in contravention of such a prohibition, or
	(c) refuses or fails to comply within a reasonable time with a direction given under section 99A(2) of this Act,
	shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."").

Earl Attlee: The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Marsh. It may be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 428.
	This is an important amendment. The Bill contains most of the text of the Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill that I introduced during the previous Session. The principal effect of that Bill would have been the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles. I am very grateful to the Minister for having introduced the necessary amendments in the other place and for the credit that he has given me publicly and on an earlier amendment.
	However, there was a smaller, but still important part of my Bill that has not yet found its way into this Bill. We all know how important it is to limit the number of hours that a lorry or coach driver can drive before he takes a rest. Without sufficient rest, drivers of such heavy vehicles are a danger to themselves and to other road users.
	The rules on drivers' hours are complicated and it is easy to fall foul of them. Fortunately, we do not need to go into the details. However, no rules, however detailed, are effective if they cannot be properly enforced. At the moment, if a policeman or a vehicle inspector realises that the driver of a foreign-registered lorry or coach has driven for longer than he should have done, he can insist that the appropriate rest period is taken immediately. However, if a UK driver exceeds his hours, the authorities do not have the power to make him rest immediately. Of course, a driver who flouts the law in that way can still be prosecuted, but in the mean time he will have driven when he was too tired to do so safely. He may even have had an accident, but he still cannot be stopped from driving.
	Prosecution is not enough. There must be a power to prohibit movement. The amendment would give the police and vehicle inspectors the power to require the drivers of UK-registered lorries and coaches to take overdue breaks or rest periods immediately, or at least as soon as the driver can get to a safe place to take that rest. Prosecution remains an option, but the important point is that drivers who may be unsafe because they have driven excessive hours cannot continue until they have rested. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has done sterling work on the subject. I hope that he will be rewarded today with the success that he deserves.
	There is no doubt that exceeding proper driver's hours is implicated in many road accidents, which shows how dangerous it is. I am sure that we all support action being taken on that.
	This is a rainbow amendment--I colour my amendments according to who puts them forward and I have four colours on this one--and it deserves the support that amendments coming from all sides of the House often receive.

Lord Berkeley: I am the third part of the rainbow. Many of us debated this provision when we considered the noble Earl's Bill a year ago. Amendments were made--I believe that the Government may have tabled some of them. I think that the Government were happy with the Bill when it left this House, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say that he is happy with it today.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others for tabling Amendments Nos. 391 and 428, which would tighten up the enforcement of drivers' hours. Together with Clauses 253, 254 and 255 and Schedule 29 on HGV impounding, the amendment formed part of the noble Earl's Private Member's Bill last Session, which ran out of time. We made it clear then that the measure is fully in line with our aims. For that reason, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Earl that we can support these two amendments.
	At present, the vehicle inspectorate and the police have no formal power to prohibit the drivers of vehicles registered in the UK who have exceeded their permitted driving time from continuing their journey. They have powers to prohibit the drivers of foreign-registered vehicles, under the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972, but for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom the only available remedy is prosecution, which does not necessarily prevent the driver from continuing his or her journey.
	For road safety reasons, it is important that enforcement officers are able to prohibit a driver who is found to have reached or exceeded the daily driving time limits or taken inadequate rest. Prohibition is an option for other infringements as well, such as when a driver fails to produce any record sheets detailing his daily activities or when those records have been falsified.
	Prohibitions will not be unduly onerous and will normally be the same as the period of rest that is due. For example, when a driver should have taken an 11-hour daily rest period but has not done so, the prohibition will normally be for 11 hours. For other infringements, the length of the prohibition will depend on the circumstances in which it was imposed.
	In some cases, prohibition might be more effective than prosecution. The power would also act as a deterrent and it would remove any grounds for complaining of discrimination between UK and foreign-registered vehicles. Above all, it should ensure that exhausted drivers do not continue to drive when they are a danger to themselves and others. I hope that the Committee agrees to the amendments.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment and for his further explanation of the details.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 392:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PUBLICATION OF GUIDE TO OPERATING COSTS
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual guide to the minimum cost per mile of legally operating a variety of goods vehicles.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall not include any element of operating profit in the guide.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all United Kingdom taxes and duties are included in his calculations.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that annual mileages of--
	(a) 50,000,
	(b) 75,000, and
	(c) 100,000,
	are included in the guide.
	(5) When producing the guide the Secretary of State shall consult any trade association, vehicle manufacturers or vehicle distributors he thinks fit.
	(6) The guide for the second and subsequent years shall include the figures for the previous year.").

Earl Attlee: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 425. Amendment No. 392 deals with the costs of operating goods vehicles. That is desirable for a number of reasons. First, new operators in the road haulage industry enter wearing rose-tinted spectacles and do not fully understand their costs of operation. Often they do not understand the costs of tyre wear, depreciation or maintenance. Secondly, frequently customers do not understand the full cost of a transport operation either and, therefore, they may not realise that their haulier may be operating illegally to achieve a competitive rate. Finally, the Government must understand that if fuel taxes are increased the costs of the industry will also increase and their competitive position will suffer.
	If it is the Government's intention to show that the cost of transport is increasing rapidly due to the Chancellor's sterling efforts, surely they will want the decision-makers in industry to be aware of that so that they can modify and reduce the amount of transport for which they contract. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My contacts with the road haulage industry have not suggested that they wear rose-tinted spectacles or that they have little idea of the costs that face them. I believe the opposite is the case. To put a requirement on the face of the Bill for the Government to produce a year two publication seems to be unnecessary. A better way to approach the matter is through the process to which I referred earlier: through regular meetings of the Road Haulage Forum. This morning we discussed the work of one of the sub-groups that is looking at the statistical base of information on the road haulage industry. Likewise, that will cover some aspects of the fiscal side. The production of a report on the fiscal barriers to all modes of transport does not seem to me to be the appropriate way to do that. It should be part of an overall approach to transport on the one hand and an overall approach to fiscal management on the other given by the Chancellor. A requirement by the Government to produce by law a report in these terms does not seem to me to be sensible.
	The Government will continue to look at the case for further fiscal measures in the context of the 10-year transport plan and fiscal measures may be one of the ways in which we achieve the objectives of that plan. To produce a separate report on those matters, as the second amendment in the group would require, is not an approach that finds favour with the Government. I hope that the noble Earl will not proceed with the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned the Road Haulage Forum. I look forward to reading the feedback in the next couple of issues of the Commercial Motor. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 393:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Use of weight restricted routes by goods vehicles
	:TITLE3:LAWFUL USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES
	. It shall be incumbent on the driver of a goods vehicle using a weight restricted route to provide evidence on demand to any police officer or member of the Vehicle Inspectorate or Trading Standards Office that he is using the route lawfully.").

Lord Bradshaw: This is an amendment that was raised in Standing Committee E in another place. I hope that I shall have more luck with this one! Since the debate in the House of Commons I have pursued this matter with the police and with others. There is considerable doubt as to whether a police officer can, as the law presently stands, demand from a driver of a heavy goods vehicle, driving along a weight-restricted route, evidential proof that he is there for a legitimate purpose.
	We have had a long debate on the adequacy of signing routes and about the words "access for loading" or "the route is restricted except for access". It appears that "loading" is the best word to use, although many routes have been signed using other words that were laid down in the law at the time and they may not be the best ones to use now. However, to re-sign is extremely expensive.
	Most weight restricted routes are in rural areas but there are some in towns which lorries use to take short cuts through housing estates. If a goods vehicle takes a route that is restricted by law, the driver of that vehicle should be able, when challenged by a police officer, to produce some evidence as to why he is on that route. In most cases he will have some form of collection order or delivery note. In other cases he will be driving to premises, the reason for which he can explain to the police officer. There will also be other cases such as lorries collecting rubbish, when the reason will be perfectly obvious.
	In many towns and villages people's lives are being made absolutely miserable because heavy lorries are persistently driven through narrow streets, taking short cuts for their own business interests and where something needs to be done. The police tell me that as the law stands they cannot demand evidence that would incriminate a person or would not incriminate a person if they were able to produce satisfactory evidence. They have to fall back on the measure of following a vehicle through a restricted route. That is extremely expensive in terms of police manpower. I am sure that most police forces find it quite impossible to police such restrictions.
	It seems that it should be possible to word a simple amendment that would place some responsibility on the driver who takes such a short route to justify his presence. I do not pretend that the words that I have used in this amendment are the ideal but if one can be drafted that would give many people in housing estates and in the country routes some protection, I am sure it would be welcomed. I hope that the Minister may be able to reply favourably in this case. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I am surprised that such an amendment is necessary at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister say why it is not necessary.

Lord Whitty: I understand the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers but I believe his amendment hits the wrong target. In relation to police powers, it is not necessary. We have consulted the police and the Crown Prosecution Service about this proposal and their view is that it is not necessary.
	The present position is not quite as the noble Lord describes. If a lorry is stopped by the police, having passed a sign indicating that there is a weight restriction, the onus is already on the driver to show that he is complying with the qualifying plate on the sign that allows access to the area covered by the prohibition. If he is unable to give a satisfactory explanation--a delivery note or whatever--he will face prosecution. So the burden is already on the driver and the police can demand that proof. It is therefore in the interests of the driver to make sure that he is not committing an offence.
	In discussion with the police, it appeared that the problem was not so much the police powers, but the signing. This is particularly important and I ask local authorities to ensure that their restrictions and alternative routes are, first, clearly signed and, secondly, for the most part, they provide in the order for an exemption for loading but not for access. The use of a loading exemption (for delivering or collecting) instead of an access exemption, which could include stopping off at a newsagents, for instance, makes the restrictions far easier for lorry drivers to understand and for the police to enforce.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was concerned that the police often have to follow a lorry through a weight-restricted area before they can take enforcement action. That would only be necessary in cases where the restriction was for access and not for loading. Access does not necessarily mean loading or unloading and the absence of a delivery note in those circumstances is not necessarily proof that the driver is committing an offence. It is therefore a question, first, of signing and, secondly, of what the exemptions relate to.
	Amendment No. 393 also envisages giving powers to the vehicle inspectorate. The inspectorate already has substantial powers but the inspectors cannot stop vehicles; they cannot take any action against moving vehicles without the police being present. It is therefore questionable whether giving them powers to demand evidence for a traffic regulation offence is appropriate.
	Therefore, although I accept what has prompted these amendments and agree that we need to improve compliance with weight restrictions, the problem lies more with local authorities and the way they sign and provide exemption orders rather than with the powers of the police. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that.

Earl Attlee: Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen if the police stop a vehicle on a restricted route and the driver just keeps quiet. It looks as though he is simply going to plead guilty on prosecution, but he then provides a form of delivery note as a defence.

Lord Whitty: As my noble friend Lord McIntosh says, he would be wasting police time. But in those circumstances he would have a defence. The existence of a delivery note on the appropriate date at the appropriate time would clearly be a defence, whether or not he offered it to the police in the first instance. I am not sure that either the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, or what I have said in relation to signing resolves that problem.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Hearing that we have now got advice from the Crown Prosecution Service to back up what was previously the advice from the ACPO may well give the police courage to go ahead.
	However, I ask that the Department of Transport ensures that circulars and instructions to local authorities about signing restricted routes make it absolutely clear that the words "restricted for access" are not used and that the word "loading" is used. That simple difference in wording appears to result in huge confusion. No police officer wishes to embark on prosecutions when he believes he will be undermined or overruled because of some technicality in the signing restrictions which, in many instances, are wide area restrictions involving large numbers of signs.
	With that proviso and expressing the hope that the circulars can be made clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 394:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Special vehicle authorisations
	:TITLE3:OFFENCE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SPECIAL VEHICLE AUTHORISATION
	. In section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after paragraph (b), insert--
	"(c) fails to comply with any of the provisions of an order made under section 44 of this Act,".").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 394, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 396. In speaking to this group, I must declare an interest in that I applied to the Secretary of State for a special order under Section 44 in connection with a military exercise taking place in Wales.
	Section 44 allows the Secretary of State to make an order to permit the movement of abnormal loads. The orders can be specific or general using a statutory instrument. The authorisation of special types of general order has a number of conditions attached to it; some are minor and of a technical nature, but are nonetheless important. But if any condition is broken, then the protection of the special type of order is lost. The operator is then back to construction and use regulations. That could mean that the vehicle is legally, though not in terms of design, severely overloaded.
	If taken to court for a minor infringement of the condition of the order, a disproportionate fine could result if the magistrate and his clerk become confused. The authorities therefore may sometimes turn a blind eye to an infringement such as not displaying exactly the right sign. Amendment No. 394 would create a new offence of failing to comply with the condition of an order made under Section 44 of the 1988 Act.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 396. Noble Lords will be aware that the construction and use regulations are now fearfully detailed and that they often cross-refer to EU directives. It is necessary for the authorities, presumably the vehicle inspectorate, to ensure that a new design of vehicle complies with the construction and use regulations. This is called, "type approval". However, it may be that a manufacturer desires to test a new vehicle or a new component by putting it into revenue-earning service.
	The Minister can make regulations to permit this but the regulations must be drafted, published and possibly laid before Parliament. That would not be appropriate for a specific authorisation. An order-making power would give the Minister much more flexibility. An order could be an SI or just a permit issued by the DETR on behalf of the Secretary of State. The amendment would add a new subsection to the Act and is drafted in the same way as the one allowing regulations to be made. However, this one would provide instead for orders. I hope that the Minister finds both these amendments attractive. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Both the amendments now before the Committee would affect the use of vehicles used for special purposes, such as the carrying of abnormal loads. As the noble Earl said, the second amendment would also cover vehicles used as prototype test vehicles or for testing components. Indeed, that is a possibility that had not occurred to me but I see the point.
	At present, such vehicles are authorised to operate on the public highway by an order issued under the authority of the Secretary of State which exempts them from the general construction and use requirements under Section 41 of the Act. This may contain a number of provisions, frequently including one that they must meet certain regulations within the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Other conditions may include, for example, a requirement to notify the police, the highway authority or a bridge owner; or, indeed, a limitation on the date and time that a vehicle can be used.
	As the noble Earl said, there is no specific offence at the moment for not complying with a provision of the order. Therefore, if a vehicle fails to meet any one of them, it ceases to be authorised by the order and has to comply with all of the construction and use regulations, as well as any other regulations made under Section 41. Because of the special nature of these vehicles it is unlikely in many cases that they will be able to comply with all the requirements. That would leave the driver of such a vehicle open to prosecution for every requirement that the vehicle fails to meet; for example, for abnormal load vehicles this could include the vehicle weight and dimension legislation that clearly such vehicles could not meet.
	If a vehicle is in breach of a provision of the order, that is not a prosecutable offence. So Amendment No. 394 seeks to ensure that a prosecution can be made on the breach of a provision of the order that the vehicle has failed to meet. However, it would not quite achieve that aim unless other amendments were made to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Such amendments would need to be made to provide a suitable and appropriate punishment for the offence. Nevertheless, I should like to take away this issue, which clearly reflects a genuine concern, and think about it before the next stage.
	Amendment No. 396 would provide for the exemption of similar vehicles from type approval regulations under Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act. At present, goods vehicles are subject to construction requirements through the Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) Regulations 1982. Similarly, passenger cars are subject to the comparable regulations of 1984. Exemptions to these requirements can only be made through changes in the regulations. As the noble Earl said, this can be cumbersome. Moreover, I am not sure as to whether it would require parliamentary approval. In any event, the process is cumbersome where it is intended to exempt a small number of vehicles such as prototypes or those built for a very specialised purpose.
	Therefore, instead of having to obtain an exemption through a change in the regulations, the amendment proposes that the vehicle should be exempt through the issuing of an order under Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Again, I sympathise with this proposal. It would enable vehicle manufacturers to develop special vehicles to perform tasks safely and efficiently without the design being compromised or restricted by the requirements placed on vehicles generally. However, important safety and environmental standards can be maintained by the restrictions or controls applied through the order.
	The powers would be useful, but, in terms of the drafting of the amendment, I believe that these would prove to be wider than would be necessary for the exemptions for special vehicles. Again, provision would have to be made for offences. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. However, as I said, I should like to consider the thinking behind the other proposal. On that basis, I trust that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply; indeed, I could expect no more. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 395 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 396 and 397 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 398:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:STRATEGY FOR PROVISION OF SERVICE AREAS
	(" . After section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time) there shall be inserted--
	"Strategy for provision of service areas.
	96A. The Secretary of State shall publish a strategy for the provision of service areas on special roads and the trunk road system so that commercial vehicle drivers can--
	(a) conveniently comply with the provisions of section 96 of this Act, and
	(b) have access to a comprehensive range of ablutions."").

Earl Attlee: This amendment concerns the provision of suitable rest facilities for drivers of commercial vehicles so that they can comply with the law and industry can attract and retain suitable drivers.
	The road transport and the bus industries are currently experiencing a shortage of drivers. Part of the cause may be the poor image and working conditions of the industry. In the past there were many establishments, collectively known as transport cafes, distributed along the trunk road network. Nowadays few survive and most have been turned into Little Chefs or Happy Eaters. Unfortunately, heavy commercial vehicle drivers are not welcome because their vehicles are large and their spend is modest in comparison with that of most car drivers. However, that is progress and we do not oppose it.
	The market for commercial vehicle drivers has developed a little. There are now a few locations, called "truck stops", distributed around the country. The BP company is in the lead in this field. However, there are severe problems. If a noble Lord were to visit Clacketts Lane or South Mimms services on the M25 at night with his 38-tonne articulated horse box, he would probably find nowhere to park, even though he must do so in order to comply with the drivers' hours rules. If, having managed to park, the noble Lord needed a shower after a hard day on the road, he might often find the washing facilities to be, frankly, disgusting.
	Noble Lords may be surprised that I have tabled this amendment. However, the poor facilities available impinge upon the ability of the industry to recruit. Worse still, a driver who has spent all night in his cab, still sticky and sweaty from his or her (and why not?) previous day's work, will not be in the right frame of mind to undertake his responsible duties. Thus there are also important safety implications here.
	It is not the duty of the Minister directly to provide improved service facilities; that is a matter for the industry. However, the industry is not well structured to deal with it. There is also the problem to which I alluded where it is understandably more profitable to look after car drivers than commercial vehicle drivers. The Highways Agency, which answers to the Minister, has a role to play in selecting sites for motorway service areas, but no doubt it has severe problems with the NIMBY syndrome.
	The Minister's department is also responsible for planning. Can the Minister make any changes to planning guidance in this regard? What is the Minister doing about the problem of service areas for commercial vehicle drivers generally? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: As the noble Earl said, the provision of services on motorways and other roads is a matter for private developers. However, the policy gives guidance to intending developers. It makes clear, for example, that drivers should not have to travel on the motorway system for more than half-an-hour before coming to a motorway service area and having the chance to stop and rest. That objective has been largely met on the motorway system and in most cases there is provision for lorry parks as well as car parks. However, I understand the noble Earl's concern that on non-motorway roads the provision is more patchy. We undertook in the transport White Paper to issue further advice on the provision of services, particularly for lorry drivers. We expect that to be published later this year.
	Existing policy is therefore well known and generally effective. Customers have concerns about the quality of services at motorway service areas. That is a matter which the guidance should address both as regards car and lorry drivers. However, little would be gained by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a more detailed strategy. As I have said, the provision on the motorway network largely meets the criteria we have set. The drivers' hours rules already provide flexibility to enable drivers to find a suitable stopping place where they can take their required break or rest period.
	So far as concerns planning, we have looked at the planning guidance in this area. The new draft planning procedures encourage greater development of motorway service areas which fit in with the general distance criteria and, in certain locations, the development of park-and-ride facilities attached to motorway service areas.
	In general we have the network covered--it is covered for lorry drivers as well as for car drivers--and a formal strategy of the kind requested by the noble Earl does not seem to be the best way of addressing the problems he identifies, which are essentially an important element of customer provision for private sector companies.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Earl decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I recognise the problem that the noble Earl seeks to address with his amendment. I also recognise the difficulties that local authorities have in fulfilling the guidance I thought to be in existence--I seem to remember it from my time on highways committees--and in achieving its aims. People do not want service stations near where they live.
	Can the Minister tell the Committee how successful the guidance has been in creating sufficient rest places on the remainder of the priority network--that is, on the non-motorway priority network--on which large volumes of traffic, including HGVs, currently run on any one day?

Lord Whitty: I said that the situation on the non-motorway network was rather more patchy. We have almost entirely met the criteria we have set ourselves on the motorway network and on the main trunk roads, but there are parts of the trunk road system where facilities do not exist at sufficient intervals. In some cases there are planning permission issues but, more often, it is a straightforward commercial issue as to whether the volume of trade would be sufficient for a developer to provide such facilities.

Earl Attlee: Before acceding to the Minister's attractive invitation to withdraw my amendment, does he think that it is a reasonable aspiration for a commercial vehicle driver to have a shower at the end of his day's work?

Lord Whitty: I think a shower at the end of a day's work is one thing; every thirty miles is an entirely different matter.

Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his excellent reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 399 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 400:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS
	(" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (6) of section 41, there shall be inserted--
	"(6A) The Secretary of State shall publish the regulations made under this section in a fully updated form on at least an annual basis.
	(6B) The Secretary of State shall produce and release electronically all the extant regulations made under this section."").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, this amendment is simple: it seeks to provide that the construction and use regulations are published once a year, fully updated. In addition, the regulations would be available electronically on the net. Quite understandably, there are frequent amendments to these regulations but it is very difficult to access the extant regulations. I am fully confident that the Minister will have no difficulty with the amendment. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, deals with a different matter and I suspect that I shall not be able to support him. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for the noble Earl's friendly introduction to my amendment. I do not have a view on Amendment No. 400, but I should like to speak to Amendment No. 402, which stands in my name.
	As the Committee will be aware, the Government have announced that they intend to introduce 44 tonne lorries generally in this country, probably at the end of the year. Can my noble friend tell the Committee the means by which they intend to change the legislation; in what kind of order and how will it be done?
	The Government have made it quite clear that the lorries permitted to operate at 44 tonnes will have to have six axles and so on; they will also have to have Euro II exhausts. Back in 1994 the Government allowed 44-tonne lorries to operate under certain circumstances to combined transport terminals. There are not an enormous number operating-- probably not more than 100 in the country--but they do provide a very useful and important commercial service as part of generally inter-modal operations. Freightliner, which is probably the biggest inter-modal operator in this country, has 90 of these vehicles, and just under 10 per cent of its loads, it believes, need this 44-tonne derogation.
	Without getting into the debate of whether 44-tonne lorries generally are a good or bad thing--we have been through that--Freightliner, quite rightly, is rather concerned that having bought these lorries and operated them quite happily for six years, it may well not be allowed to operate them next year, even though other 44-tonne lorries will be operating. These lorries were not built with the Euro II exhaust because that design was not around earlier.
	So my amendment seeks to suggest that the original road vehicle construction and use regulations which permitted this should not be changed for 10 years after this Act commences. I am sure that the wording is not right but I also hope that my noble friend will see the point of the argument and may be able to come up with an alternative solution.

Earl Attlee: Perhaps I ought to withdraw my somewhat acidic comments about the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 400 seeks to consolidate and make available in electronic form the construction and use regulations. These regulations contain a detailed prescription of the technical design and construction standards required of vehicles. They are very complex and that of itself places a practical limit on those who can use them. Generally, only manufacturers and others with a professional interest in the subject are likely to consult them. We do, of course, provide advisory material for maintenance and other purposes and for private individuals where necessary, much of which can be seen on the Internet.
	Specialist publications, including electronic media, already make available commercially the consolidated position. In addition, Her Majesty's Stationary Office has placed all statutory instruments made since January 1997 on its website, and that is freely accessible.
	There have been numerous amendments to these regulations since they were made in 1986. It is undeniably the case that consolidation is now warranted. We are also considering whether some restructuring would be beneficial, for example, by separating the regulations into subject themes. The Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989 are a precedent. That would make the regulations easier to follow. and to amend in a transparent fashion. However, that option represents a very substantial drafting exercise. We are starting to give the task due priority, along with other drafting work. Once that is completed the number and net complexity of any future changes will vary year by year. In some years there might be few amendments whereas in other years there could be a substantial number. The question of whether to republish every year needs to be taken into account and we therefore need a rather more flexible requirement than automatic annual consolidation.
	Once we have consolidated and, if appropriate, restructured the construction and use regulations, they will appear on the HMSO website, as will subsequent amendments. Given that that is already in the pipeline, I do not believe that it would be cost effective to divert resources to achieve what the proposed amendments seek.
	On the rather different subject of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I am sorry to have to disappoint him. We have already indicated that we are tackling some of the problems in the 10-year plan arising from the issue he raises. He questions under what powers we will conduct the introduction of the 44-tonne lorries. The Government will be making regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	The issue concerns the existing inter-modal operators who have already taken advantage of the current 44-tonne weight limit and have invested in equipment as well as demonstrating a commitment to inter-modal road/rail freight movements. The noble Lord was concerned that the Euro II engine requirement which will come into effect on the new extension of 44-tonne lorries--which will come into effect now on 1st February next year--will affect disproportionately the inter-modal operators which already exist. Euro II engines became compulsory anyway for all lorries put into service in late 1997. We have had discussions with the inter-modal operators and have established that the relatively small number of 44-tonne vehicles which came into service before that date will, by and large, have reached the end of their useful life by the end of 2003.
	For that reason we announced last week that we will not repeal the existing 44-tonne combined transport regulations until the end of 2003. Therefore, we are giving a three-year extension to non-Euro II engine compliant vehicles rather than the 10 years which the noble Lord requests in Amendment No. 402. We believe that will deal with the bulk of the problem which he identifies. With these explanations I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I have slightly different information. Although 10 years was my and their first stab at the time period, perhaps something in the middle is right. I shall certainly go away and speak to the noble Lords further. Perhaps I shall come back and perhaps I shall not.

Earl Attlee: It is good that the time is not right to test the opinion of the Committee. I was a little disappointed with the Minister's reply. The construction and use regulations are very detailed. Sometimes it is important to be able to look up in a reference book when a particular requirement comes into force. For instance, how young does a vehicle have to be before it needs to be fitted with sideguards?
	Perhaps the Minister can say why the Northern Irish road haulage fraternity has the benefit of one volume of the Northern Ireland construction and use regulations?

Lord Whitty: All I would say is that things are often better in Northern Ireland.

Earl Attlee: I hope that Hansard caught that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 401:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS: MOBILE CRANES
	(" . After subsection (5) of section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted--
	"(5A) No order relating to mobile cranes made under this section shall prevent the operator of the mobile crane from carrying a motor bicycle of no more than 250cc displacement with the vehicle."").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 401 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 409. These amendments deal with totally unrelated issues but I am confident that I shall receive a full reply. Amendment No. 401 seeks to allow a small motorbike to be carried on a mobile crane. Current construction and use regulations prohibit the carriage of anything not strictly necessary for the operation of the crane. However, these cranes are expensive to run and sometimes can be very large indeed. One type weighs 138 tonnes. If a small motorbike could be carried, unnecessary movements could be avoided. I hope the Minister will look favourably at the principle.
	I turn to Amendment No. 409. I remind the Committee that I have an interest. Amendment No. 409 deals with the need for a network of roads that can accommodate very high, wide or heavy loads. I am not convinced that sufficient attention is being paid to the need to maintain a suitable network. I believe the Minister is aware of the problem but sometimes highways and bridge authorities are very willing to move the problem somewhere else. That could result in an order for our heavy engineering industry going somewhere else as well. Perhaps the Minister would say what is being done about this problem. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 409 concerns the movement of abnormal loads. I can inform the Committee that we are already tackling this problem. Officials from my department are engaged in the task of developing and seeking agreements on maintaining a strategic route network for moving heavy and high loads safely and economically. Any system for routeing abnormal loads needs to be flexible to take into account the varying circumstances, the time of the movement, the duration of the movement and the size of the movement. A legislative base, which is what the amendment provides, would be somewhat less flexible than what we hope will be the outcome of the administrative approach which we are already developing. It might preclude the development and use of other transportation systems--for example, on inland waterways--which might help in one instance and not in another. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured that we are administratively beginning to tackle that problem and that he will not therefore press his amendment.
	Amendment No. 401 relates to heavy mobile cranes. There is a fairly strict requirement that mobile cranes should not carry anything. I remain to be convinced that a small motorbike should be an exemption from that requirement. Presumably, the intention behind the amendment is that when the operator of the mobile crane has arrived at his destination he can jump on his motorbike and go home. When we are dealing with capital equipment worth several thousands it is not beyond the wit of the operator to ensure that when the crane driver arrives at the site he has a means of transportation home, if that is the problem. I am not totally convinced that what seems to be a minor and convenient amendment for the operator is justifiable in that it could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. There are other ways of meeting that requirement.

Lord Bradshaw: I was interested in the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 409 regarding high and heavy loads. I am desperately concerned about the number of railway bridges that are regularly hit by high vehicles. One bridge between Aylesbury and Bicester has been hit several times this year. There is a tragedy waiting to happen. I hope that the Minister's officials working on the high and heavy load strategy will mark out on the map the bridges that are frequently hit by heavy lorries and will try to ensure that wherever possible routeing avoids them. There is a serious problem.

Lord Berkeley: They should also ensure that the drivers and owners of heavy lorries are prosecuted. When last we discussed this matter the answer given by my noble friend--perhaps it was his predecessor--was that Railtrack would prosecute only in cases of vehicles owned by large companies because those companies would be expected to know the height of their lorries. We need to go further than that. Perhaps I may make one comment on Amendment No. 401. The alternative to a motorbike is a pushbike, for which one does not need a licence.

Earl Attlee: The problem with a pushbike is that it would still not be essential to the operation of the crane. Therefore the mobile crane would not be able to carry a pushbike.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the problem of bridge bashing. The most significant problem arises when relatively normal vehicles bash the bridge. They are not especially high ones. They are just a little higher than the minimum height limit of the bridge!
	I am not surprised by the Minister's reply to my first amendment. I am sure that I would have said exactly the same thing if I were in his position. I am very reassured by his response to Amendment No. 409. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 401.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 402 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 403:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:EFFECTS OF DELAYS IN GRANTING PROVISIONAL HGV DRIVERS LICENCES: PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
	(" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (2) of section 111, there shall be inserted--
	"(3) The Secretary of State shall produce an annual report on the effect of delays in the granting of provisional vocational drivers' licences."").

Earl Attlee: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 405 and 426E. We are short of about 2,500 bus drivers and a large number of heavy goods vehicle drivers. These amendments seek to deal with that problem. The bus industry is experiencing difficulties with the delay in issuing PSV licences. That is largely due to the need to issue licences with a photograph. Unfortunately, the bus industry frequently loses good applicants due to the delay in issuing a new licence with a photograph on it.
	First, what is the Minister doing about the delays in general? Secondly, is there any way in which he could provide a dispensation to allow training to commence--although not on fare-paying services--before the issue of a new licence? There may be difficulties, but if so, what are they?
	Amendment No. 405 deals with a little difficulty for the Armed Forces, created by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The forces can allow young drivers to drive heavy vehicles before they are 21 years old. This is both desirable and necessary. There is a limited safety risk because such drivers are well trained and under military discipline. For some time, several penalty points on a driving licence meant that a vocational driving licence could not be issued. That was bearable, but now, I understand, any penalty points issued would mean that a vocational driving licence cannot be issued to a driver under the age of 21. This means that youngsters with only a very minor speeding offence cannot join many regiments in the force, especially the Royal Logistic Corps. Will the Minister review his policy in respect of the Armed Forces?
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 426E. The House decided that a driver should be able to lose his licence for reasons totally unrelated to his driving. We shall not revisit that debate, but we need to be able to measure any adverse effects. My fear is that these changes will severely undermine road safety. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that he will ensure that the DVLA keeps full records so that after a reasonable time, noble Lords will be able to table Questions in order to detect any adverse effects arising from the new legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: We are dealing once again with slightly disparate amendments all related to issues of licensing. Amendment No. 403 is defective in that it will not achieve what the noble Earl is seeking. The information required to publish such a report is not held centrally. In his amendment, the noble Earl has made no provision for the collection of such information.
	What is held centrally is licensing information. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency already publishes an annual report showing its performance in meeting performance targets, which includes a customer service target. The noble Earl has expressed concern about bus driver licences, but the target for turnaround of vocational driving licences for the year 2000-01 is 95 per cent within eight days; namely, eight days from receipt of the application. The DVLA has met that target consistently over the past three years. Market research conducted among vocational drivers, which included bus drivers, indicated that, generally speaking, a high level of satisfaction has been expressed over that standard. I believe that that performance in turning around volume applications is better than in many other parts of either the public or the private sector.
	The annual report of the DVLA, which details those figures, was laid before both Houses on 24th July and will be published formally in mid-August. Should the noble Earl so wish, I shall send him a copy direct.
	Delays in the issuing of provisional driving licences are sometimes inevitable where there is a need for proper medical checks or a problem is encountered as regards validating an applicant's identity. For obvious reasons of safety, applicants for vocational driving licences are required to demonstrate that they are responsible people and have a higher standard of fitness that would be expected of applicants for ordinary licences.
	I shall turn now to Amendment No. 405, which would allow members of the Armed Forces to be granted a vocational driving licence even when six valid penalty points have been accumulated through driving offences. This amendment implies that we should treat driving offences committed by young drivers in the Armed Forces more leniently than those committed by young civilian vocational drivers or, for example, young drivers on the young driver training scheme. I do not think that that is a reasonable request. Young military drivers already benefit from a driving licence concession in that they are allowed to drive vocational vehicles from the age of 17, whereas non-military drivers must be 21 years old, with some exceptions. I do not believe that such a provision is vital. The conduct of vocational drivers, especially those under 21, ought to be exemplary. There are road safety implications in allowing young military drivers in effect to commit two driving offences before having their vocational entitlement refused.
	Amendment No. 405 would also conflict with the Road Traffic (New Drivers Act) 1995. A new military driver would be able to continue driving with six penalty points whereas a new civilian driver who had accumulated six points within two years of passing his or her driving test would have the driving licence revoked. I do not believe that there is a need for preferential treatment of military drivers in this respect. Indeed, the DVLA has regular meetings with the military to discuss all areas of licensing arrangements and policy in related areas and the matter has never been raised in that context. It would seem, therefore, so far as the DVLA is aware, that the Armed Forces are content with current procedures.
	Amendment No. 426E is intended to secure the annual publication of statistics detailing the number of drivers disqualified from holding a driving licence as a result of judgments made under provisions in child welfare legislation. I am not entirely clear what this means, and the noble Earl did not refer to it. There is currently no child welfare legislation on the statute book which provides for the disqualification of drivers. I am not sure, therefore, what lies behind the noble Earl's amendment unless he is thinking of the child support Bill that has just completed its passage. The provisions in that Bill relate to the Child Support Agency and are different from child welfare provisions.
	The Home Office publishes annual statistics dealing with motoring offences, broken down by type of offence, and lists the numbers of people convicted of driving while disqualified. Those statistics are placed, as a matter of course, in the Library of the House. They are sufficient to provide a record of the number and type of offences and offenders. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendments.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He mentioned that the DVLA is turning round licences within eight days. That is commendable. I shall be interested to see what feedback I receive from industry as a result of our discussions.
	I am rather disappointed with the Minister's response to my amendment relating to the Armed Forces. My understanding is that there were some breakdowns in consultation prior to the changes being made. We shall have to re-examine this matter, either by parliamentary opportunity or at the later stages of the Bill.
	As regards child support legislation, it is difficult to draft an amendment that covers a Bill rather than an Act of Parliament. We shall return to most of these issues at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 404:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DRIVING INSTRUCTORS: REGISTRATION ETC
	(" . In section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after "motor car" insert "or heavy motor car".").

Earl Attlee: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 417 and 424. These amendments deal with driving instructors. I must declare an interest as a qualified Army driving instructor, although I cannot benefit from Amendment 417 as drafted.
	Amendment No. 404 provides that instructors for vocational driving licences, as well as ordinary licences, must be approved. It is a probing amendment. Has the Minister any intention of introducing such a provision?
	Turning to Amendment No. 417, the Armed Forces operate an excellent defence school of transport at Leconfield, near Hull. All their instructors and examiners are trained there. As I understand it--I am ready to be corrected--a qualified Army driving instructor cannot, by virtue of his military qualifications, become a DETR approved driving instructor.
	Amendment No. 424 is in a different group, but perhaps it ought to be in this one. The amendment calls for another report by the Secretary of State on the supply of drivers. I shall not move it but I am sure that it is more relevant to this debate. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I speak to our Amendments Nos. 426B and 426C which are part of this group. These amendments insert two clause into the Bill. Their purpose is to provide that all driving instructors are subject to a regime of testing, licensing, registration, regulation and supervision. They do so by amending the Road Traffic Act 1988. The better regulation of driving instruction, with the improved driving standards that should follow, was a main objective of the Government's Road Safety Strategy. I am grateful for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his officials in assisting me to achieve my ambition to help the Government further the objectives of their strategy which require legislation. I hope that these amendments meet with the approval of the parliamentary draftsman; if not, I am prepared to return at Report stage with a simple enabling amendment.
	Amendment No. 426B substitutes "motor vehicles" for "motor bicycles and mopeds" in those provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which deal with the training requirements of instructors. Amendment No. 426C, which is a substantive amendment, amends Section 123 of the 1988 Act which currently regulates the licensing and registration of instructors of motor car drivers. The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to set up a register of all those who are permitted to be professional driving instructors. He may exempt certain people from the need to be on the register; he may restrict some instructors to certain types of vehicles; he may specify the tests and fees required for registration; and he may remove from the register incompetent instructors or those of insufficient financial standing.
	The clause also provides for an appeal against removal from the register to the Transport Tribunal, which must determine the appeal within 90 days. Those on the existing register, and any who appear on a voluntary register maintained by the Driving Standards Agency, may be placed on the new register. That reflects the intention of the Government as expressed in the strategy to make a start with voluntary registers of some driving instructors. These amendments provide on the face of the Bill a detailed specification for the better regulation of driving instructors, which is precisely what the Government seek to achieve in the context of their Road Safety Strategy.

Earl Attlee: I shall enjoy reading the speech of the noble Baroness. However, can she say why an instructor must have appropriate financial standing?

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Many instructors are self-employed and, therefore, should be able to support their businesses.

Lord Smith of Leigh: I rise to support Amendment No. 426C. Clearly, the quality of driver training affects road safety. The registration of instructors would be evidence of both their competence as instructors and the fact that they are fit and proper persons to carry out that task. Such a scheme must have two qualities. First, it needs to be relatively straightforward so that the cost of the scheme does not discourage people from using professional instructors and resorting to more informal methods of training, which would not improve road safety. Secondly, a real test of any scheme is whether it is accurate. A number of well publicised cases in the medical profession, where registration is probably more important, illustrate the difficulty of maintaining accurate registers. I believe that the principles of this amendment should be supported, and I hope that my noble friend will do so.

Lord Whitty: All of these amendments in part address the quality of driving instructors, with the exception of Amendment No. 424 which I believe the noble Earl said he did not intend to move. As to Amendment No. 426C spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, clearly that fits within our Road Safety Strategy. The key element is the need to improve the quality of driving instruction if we are to improve both the pass rate and the quality of drivers who pass the driving test. We set out in our strategy the need to move to a system of registration to enable more timely enforcement and create an appeals procedure independent of the Secretary of State to deal with some complaints relating to present instructors. On the financial aspect, as the noble Baroness said, a large number of driving instructors are self-employed and therefore there needs to be that provision when they are running as a separate business.

Earl Attlee: While we are on that point, why does a driving instructor have to have appropriate financial standing but the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operators licence does not?

Lord Whitty: The holder of a restricted goods vehicle licence would be part of a bigger business and involved in the carriage of goods, but the carriage of goods is not the main business. Therefore the financial standing does not relate to the carriage of goods. A road haulage operator or, as in this example, driving instructors are by profession one-man businesses offering their services and clearly the financial standing is important as regards a consumer having some security in any contracted instruction courses being deliverable.
	Amendment No. 426C tabled by the noble Baroness sets out many of the provisions we would wish to see in the area of Road Safety Strategy. Whether it would meet with the approval of parliamentary counsel, however, depends on its compatibility with Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act and we would need to look at that. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I shall take the amendment away to see whether it can be made compatible and whether, as she implies, that is the best approach. An answer will be given at a later stage.
	The same comment applies to Amendment No. 426B which fits its purpose but needs to be complemented by other provisions to which consideration will have to be given. We will come forward with that at a later stage so that we can meet the prescription of training courses and those who may provide them for all types of motor vehicles. That should make a major contribution to the improvement of the quality of training and therefore of road safety.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl. Amendment No. 404 would have the effect of requiring all driving instructors who are currently unregulated to reregister in order to engage in their trade. I appreciate the purpose of that and our strategy would eventually require such a provision. However, the amendment as it stands would not allow a transitional period or any prioritisation and it could not be brought into effect in the way the amendment implies. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment at this stage.
	Amendment No. 417 would have the effect of specifically allowing an instructor at an MoD school of transport to be registered as a commercial car driving instructor without obtaining any qualifications. That is difficult. Clearly many MoD instructors would be appropriate but the MoD instructors as such operate within a specialised environment, often with quite unusual vehicles and with trainees who are subject to rather more discipline than perhaps trainees in the outside world. People with different training backgrounds who wish to pursue careers as car driving instructors teaching the general public to drive on public roads must be able to demonstrate competencies at least the equivalent to other approved driving instructors. Therefore, I could not accept a straight transfer from MoD instructor to registered ADI. I hope that the noble Lord will not insist on that amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I think meant--perhaps he will confirm this--that the principles of what I was proposing are likely to reappear in some form or another in the Bill at a later stage. Do I see the Minister nodding his head? I would be disappointed if, after the efforts I have made, we did not achieve something which is so obviously desirable through the legislative process. That is required to take the matter forward, although the implementation of the clause may be delayed for some reason or other because of the processes which have to be gone through before it can be put into effect.

Earl Attlee: Clearly, my Amendment No. 404 is nowhere near as sophisticated as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I was disappointed with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 417. It is not the right time to pursue it but I shall return to it at a later stage. I shall look closely at the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness when it appears in some guise and it is to be hoped that we can approve her approach to improving the quality of driving instructors. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 406:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
	(" . In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, after subsection (1) of section 104, there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) When a person authorised under subsection (1B) below finds on private property a vehicle which has been permitted to remain at rest there in contravention of any warning signs, he may fix an immobilisation device to that vehicle if he is authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
	(1B) The Secretary of State may authorise a person to immobilise a vehicle in accordance with subsection (1A) above.
	(1C) Before the Secretary of State authorises an applicant, he must be satisfied that the applicant fulfils the following requirements, namely--
	(a) that he is of good repute, and
	(b) that he is of the appropriate financial standing."").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 406 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 421. Amendment No. 406 raises the issue of wheel clamping. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has since tabled a far more superior and carefully drafted amendment. My only question is, why is the Minister dithering so much?
	I turn to Amendment No. 421. The Committee will be aware of a wide variation in the level of security offered by public car parks. Some are inherently secure while others are not. Presently, there is no indication on the standard road sign for a car park that it relates to a secure car park. However, there is some understanding about what standards are required. The public need to know whether they are being directed to a secure car park or one operated by Mr Arthur Daley. What is the Minister doing about it? I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: I shall not accuse the Minister of dithering. I shall be much more expansive but I suppose the result will be the same.
	The intention of Amendment No. 416 standing in my name is simple. It is to regulate those people who clamp motor vehicles on private land. There are those who operate companies which can be applauded and who abide by a code of conduct but there are others, generally called "cowboy clampers", who charge huge amounts of money, often without the knowledge of the owner of the land. It is the latter who would benefit from regulation.
	Perhaps the Committee will permit me to give a partial chronological history of the Denver Boot, as it used to be called. After it became apparent that cowboy clampers were causing problems, in 1992 a Scottish court ruled that private clamping was unlawful and a year later the Government published a consultative document setting out measures to control clamping on private land.
	In 1994 an attempt to insert an amendment in the Criminal Justice Bill to outlaw unscrupulous clamping was overruled. In 1995 an English court determined that private wheel clamping was lawful within certain parameters. In 1996 a Private Member's Bill was presented in the other place to regulate private wheel clampers. On 15th July 1997 the Home Secretary in a press office release stated:
	"It is essential that cowboys and cheats that besmirch the industry's name are weeded out".
	Last year, a White Paper was published on the proposed regulation of the private security industry. So the intention to address the problem of wheel clampers has been with us for some years and there is overwhelming support for its regulation--but nothing has happened.
	Since the introduction of the wheel clamp in this country, tens of thousands of people have fallen victim to cowboy wheel clampers who have in many cases extorted outlandish sums of money in often questionable circumstances. To this day many wheel clamping acts are probably unlawful. I hope the Committee will forgive me for digressing slightly when I cite the case of a disabled couple of pensioners on income support who, according to a recent edition of the Sunday Times, had their car towed away by Waltham Forest Council or its contractors for parking during a weekend in a bay used for council workers during the week. As I said, that occurred on a Sunday. The couple were charged £170. Their appeal against the charge, via the Sunday Times consumer champion, failed. Therefore, it is not only the private operators who charge what appear to be excessive amounts in dubious circumstances. I have on two occasions spoken with someone who works for the council's chief executive but I have heard nothing further. Therefore, I assume that that example is accurate.
	I wonder whether any Members of the Committee watched the television programme a few days ago which showed a company in, I believe, Harrogate clamping vehicles within a few seconds of the driver getting out of a car. As I recall, the clamper charged £75 for releasing the clamp and appeared to be enjoying his employment. Although that company has, I believe, been forced to stop its activities in relation to wheel clamping, many like it are still operating. It is for that reason that I address this problem.
	The British Parking Association has announced a new code of practice which covers clamping on private land. Excellent! However, I doubt very much that that will stop the cowboys from continuing their abhorrent trade. It has been said that landowners will not want cowboy clampers to operate on their land. But the owners of the land simply want people not to park there and they will not worry about the status of the clampers. This trade has been getting away with extorting huge sums of money from unsuspecting motorists for a long time. It is now time to address the problem.

Lord Whitty: I recognise the problems. The noble Earl asked me what I am doing about them. I am not doing anything but neither am I dithering. My colleagues in the Home Office have the matter well in hand. My noble friend Lord Simon referred to the Home Office initiatives. The Home Office will produce firm proposals to regulate the private security industry, including particularly the clampers, and will introduce legislation, as they say, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Whitty: The Home Office generally gets its Bills, as we have seen in the course of the past week or two.
	Those proposals will tackle directly the question of criminal activity and the whole basis of cowboy operations within the clamping sector. It will be a condition of acquiring a licence that the applicant will not have previous convictions for criminal offences and will operate according to the new requirements. Therefore, the matter is in hand and I hope to see the proposals come through the system very soon.
	My noble friend Lord Simon also tabled Amendment No. 421 but did not speak to it at great length. There are reasons why that amendment is defective. However, the national Secured Car Parks scheme is now in operation and the revision of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions is already in hand. Together, they should meet the concerns behind that amendment.
	I ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his interesting remarks. I am somewhat confused by the term "parliamentary timetable" or whatever it was that he said. However, I assume that that will mean "sooner rather than later". I shall not move my amendment.

Earl Attlee: From what the Minister said, it appears that we need to stop the Home Office rather than the Minister from dithering.
	I should like to mention one of the difficulties in relation to clamping. Clearly we must eliminate the criminal element but we must also be careful to avoid over-regulation. I shall read carefully what the Minister said about the traffic signs. I hope that it is good news. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, subject to the usual conditions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 407:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CARRYING OF GUIDE AND HEARING DOGS IN TAXIS: EXEMPTIONS
	(" . In section 37(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, after the word "medical" insert "or religious".").

Earl Attlee: In moving Amendment No. 407, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 408. Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act prevents unfair discrimination by taxi drivers against blind travellers and, possibly deaf travellers using a guide dog. The legislation has been on the statute book for some time. There is no associated secondary legislation. The Minister has said that he is consulting. When will he finish that consultation?
	Amendment No. 407 would provide the option of exemptions on religious as well as medical grounds. Amendment No. 408 is fairly brutal, providing that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should come into force on 1st April next year. When will the Minister implement that most important piece of legislation? I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: On behalf of my noble friends, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Addington has been a doughty fighter for the rights of disabled people, including their right to proper access to transport. It would be a great advantage if disabled people could be sure of always being able to take their guide dog with them when they use a taxi.
	The only problem might be that ordinary hire cars, which are often used by disabled drivers, might not be covered. Nevertheless, it would be a valuable step in the right direction.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, rightly says that the proposals on consultation, which I announced in the House only last week, cover taxis. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not cover private cars.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked how soon we were going to enact Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act. My answer is, sooner than his amendment would. The consultation suggests a date of 1st March 2001, whereas his amendment says 1st April 2001. The consultation announced last week, which had been delayed, has been distributed. That meets the intention of Amendment No. 408. We are almost there.
	I do not understand the argument behind Amendment No. 407, which would allow exemptions for taxi drivers on religious as well as medical grounds. That sounds like a pretty wide exemption. Religion is never defined in legislation. The amendment could lead to spurious applications. We have checked and we are not aware of any specific religious objections, so we do not think that a religious exemption is appropriate. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The last thing that I want to do is delay the implementation of Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act, even by one month.
	I tabled the amendment to add religious grounds to medical grounds in case there might be a problem. I am glad that the Minister says that there is not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 408 and 409 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 410:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:COMPULSORY GOODS VEHICLE WEIGHING SCHEME
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State may make an order to provide that all major road freight facilities, ports and premises with an estimated throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles per year exceeding 7500 kilograms gross vehicle weight shall have a compulsory goods vehicle weighing scheme.
	(2) Any order made under subsection (1) above shall provide--
	(a) for the weighing of every goods vehicle leaving the facility;
	(b) for the provision of the driver with two copies of a weight report;
	(c) that the driver must sign and return one copy of the weight report to the facility operator;
	(d) that the weight report shall show--
	(i) the registration number of the vehicle,
	(ii) the gross vehicle weight,
	(iii) the number of axles,
	(iv) the weight on each individual axle,
	(v) whether the vehicle would be illegal in terms of axle or gross weights even if it had the most favourable axle spacings and tyre equipment, and
	(vi) the details with broadly the same layout as the plating certificate, provided for under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
	(e) that the facility operator shall keep a copy of all weight reports for a period of 12 months and shall make originals available to enforcement agencies.
	(3) Production of a weight report together with relevant tachograph records may be used as evidence of the weight of the lorry in any court proceedings involving overloading.
	(4) In this section a "major road freight facility" or "facility" means a location--
	(a) of one or more premises under common management, control or ownership;
	(b) having one or more common exits onto the highway; and
	(c) having a throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kilograms per annum.
	(5) If a driver is convicted under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of an offence relating to overloading, the court must disqualify the driver for a period of at least one month if his vehicle was weighed in accordance with subsection (1) above unless--
	(a) the driver can show that an additional significant load was taken on after weighing in accordance with subsection (1) above and--
	(i) it was not practical to re-weigh the vehicle,
	(ii) the overload was caused by the additional load,
	(iii) there was no reason to suspect that the vehicle would be overloaded by the additional load, and
	(iv) the tachograph records show that it would have been possible for an additional load to have been taken on in accordance with the driver's evidence in defence, or
	(b) there are exceptional circumstances why the driver should not be disqualified.
	(6) In this subsection, "exceptional circumstances" means circumstances relating to the overload.").

Lord Bradshaw: This amendment arises out of one major cause, the agreement that was formed in the Commission for Integrated Transport on the introduction of 44-tonne lorries. That was not a popular agreement among all members, but a bargain was struck. The package included the introduction of heavier--44-tonne--lorries but it also included much better enforcement of the existing laws relating to the road transport industry.
	We are delighted that progress has been made on the matter of impounding and tonight we are also delighted that the second part of the Bill moved in the last Session of Parliament by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, relating to drivers who have exceeded their driving hours being stopped is now on its way.
	The third element was that something effective would be done about overloaded lorries. First, overloaded lorries are dangerous. If a lorry is loaded above its plated capacity, its braking is impaired, making it unable to stop effectively. Therefore, it is much more likely to be involved in an accident. If such a lorry is involved in an accident the sheer weight of the lorry means that the accident may be more serious than it would be otherwise.
	Secondly, an overloaded lorry does huge damage to the roads. The damage created by a lorry, or any vehicle, to the roads is related to the fourth power of the axle weight. A lorry that is, for example, one or two tonnes overloaded on its drive axle can do immense damage to the road, which has to be repaired at public expense.
	Thirdly, overloaded lorries trade at a competitive advantage to those who comply with the law. There is clear evidence that many overloaded lorries emanate from the ports. In discussion with officials in the department, in which I took part, there was some procrastination about whether it was possible to weigh vehicles at ports of entry. We were told that if weighing was exclusively confined to ports we may be discriminating illegally against vehicles coming in from European countries.
	In trying to draw up this new clause we were careful also to include inland places from which large numbers of lorries enter the highways. At many of those places, such as quarries, lorries are weighed, in any event, because there is a need for a weight ticket to effect a sale of bulk goods like grain or aggregates. However, it appears to us to be absolutely essential from the point of view of safety, fair trade and the proper maintenance of the highway that proper measures are taken to ensure that before lorries enter the highway they comply with weight regulations.
	I am the first to admit that this amendment may not be drafted in the most elegant way possible. In moving the amendment we seek a commitment on the part of the Government to do something about overweight lorries. That was an implicit part of the bargain that was struck within the Commission on Integrated Transport on the introduction of 44-tonne lorries which, I believe, we have been told will be next April.
	I hope the Minister, in his reply to this debate, will be able to give some comfort to those of us who are looking for fairness, proper trading procedures, greater safety and proper regard for roads. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: Amendment No. 410 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who moved it. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was heavily involved in discussions on it, but unfortunately, due to an administrative error (perhaps on my part) his name was not put to it.
	Amendment No. 410 may be defective. But behind it lies the view that certain locations handle a large number of heavily loaded vehicles; notably ports. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, described lucidly why we need to include inland facilities; a potential problem may arise in that regard as well.
	During discussions outside the Chamber, Members of the Committee were discussing consignor liability. The amendment does not provide for consignor liability, though I may come back to that at a later stage with an amendment that does. The amendment recognises that ports should not have to police the road haulage industry. On the other hand, the amendment ensures that no driver could leave such a facility without knowing for certain that he was overloaded. The penalty is a short period of disqualification. I accept that that may be a little fierce. There is an "exceptional circumstances" escape; but that relates to the load and not to the personal circumstances of the driver.
	What is the Minister's view on the amendment? What would his reaction be to a consignor liability amendment at a later stage? Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will be parting company on his Amendment No. 412. We have had endless studies on the maximum weight of goods vehicles. We had the Armitage report in the 1980s. It recommended 44 tonnes and the last administration went for 38. We had the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House in 1994; it recommended 44 tonnes and the Minister went for 41 tonnes. That is unique to the UK; so much for a standardised Europe.
	According to the Esso company's letter to the Select Committee, moving from 38 to 44 tonnes would save it 35,000 vehicle movements and 2.44 million vehicle miles. That is what stimulated me to table Amendment No. 416C, to introduce 44 tonnes for liquid fuel deliveries to retail outlets immediately.

Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving Amendment No. 410. I would have added my name to it and I support it. I shall speak to that amendment first and then move on to Amendment No. 412.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, summed up the reasons behind Amendment No. 410. One point he did not make was that if a lorry is overloaded not only will its brakes not work so well but also its steering can be impaired, which can be just as dangerous as can be seen from the many letters that I and other noble Lords have received in recent weeks.
	However, I want to inquire into whether or not it is practical to introduce this mechanism. There is no point in saying that all premises with a throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles a year should be brought within this provision if the equipment is not available to make it work. It is good that there is at least one system which can be moved around easily and which provides an accurate, automatic weighing of individual axle weight, which is the problem, the weight of axle groups and the overall weight of a heavy lorry. It was demonstrated to the Vehicle Inspectorate earlier this year. It will give the driver a printout, as required by the amendment, giving the information in a record form, a copy of which can be kept by the facility and another copy given to the police.
	It is a mechanism that I believe would make this amendment work; and, indeed, it would not cost too much money to install. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister is aware of this portable weighbridge. It has been developed by Captels and is called an LS WIM system. It does seem to work, as do many other systems. However, the important thing to bear in mind is that such a system exists which would enable such a weighing scheme to be operated. I support the amendment.
	I shall not say much on Amendment No. 412, which I tabled some time ago. It was meant to be a probing amendment and arose as a result of the report of the Commission for Integrated Transport issued in March, or late February, and the Government's subsequent decision on 44 tonnes. In view of the announcement on the 10-year transport plan, the statements by Ministers tonight about the enforcement of regulations and the other matters mentioned in the report, I shall not pursue this amendment. I should like to take this opportunity to say how grateful I am for the announcement last week as regards the transport plan for the railways.

Viscount Simon: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I felt that some practical experience of mine might be relevant to the debate. Until fairly recently when the broader changes took place regarding the M25, it was well known that junction 7 on the M11 was to be avoided at all costs. In fact, the whole of the M11 was to be avoided because the Essex constabulary used to haul over lorries on to junction 7 where they would be inspected. I have been on traffic patrol when this has happened. I have crawled over and under lorries and have seen the faults that have been found. On average, one in three lorries has defects. That is certainly a matter worthy of consideration. If that aspect could be extended, all well and good!

Earl Attlee: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned one in three lorries being either defective or overloaded and suggested that that does not really matter; it is a sorry tale. However, we need to remember that the vehicle inspectorate has that eagle eye for any vehicle that is defective. It is not surprising that it has a fairly high hit rate.

Viscount Simon: I should point out that it is the police officers who pull over the vehicles in the first place.

Lord Whitty: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint noble Lords in this respect. We recognise that overloading can be a problem, but the solution suggested in this amendment seems disproportionate. The number of permanent sites in the country that would be covered by the proposed definition is estimated at 100,000, not including temporary sites such as building sites. Although the cost involved may come down a little if the machine mentioned by my noble friend Lord Berkeley were used, the estimated cost for having fixed-point weighing machines would be about £2 billion. I believe that to be somewhat excessive.
	We believe that the problem would be better tackled by enforcement improving its sophistication and by ensuring that defects such as overloading, as well as other vehicle defects and drivers' hours defects, are better dealt with by the targeting of the vehicle inspectorate's operations. Indeed, there have been substantial improvements over recent years both in terms of resources and the way in which lorries are pulled over.
	As far as concerns overloading, this is becoming less of a problem. The proportion of overloading offences has fallen by about 30 per cent since we introduced the regulations in line with EU limits on 1st January 1999. We are faced primarily with a damage to the road problem. Indeed, although there are safety implications, they are statistically not large in number. Nevertheless, overloading is a problem that would be best addressed by improving the enforcement by the vehicle inspectorate, and so on, and not by providing weighing gear at 100,000 sites and at that cost.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated that he did not expect a detailed reply to his amendment. I appreciate what he said about the 10-year plan, which certainly addresses the need to support the rail freight industry.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether he is satisfied that police forces and others involved in this kind of enforcement are as keen as they should be to pull heavy lorries off the roads on to sites where they can be inspected. It is an unsafe occupation.
	In my local authority, which has some of the most crowded roads in England, the police are reluctant to endanger themselves trying to persuade drivers to move to the side of the road. I do not know whether the Minister has encountered that difficulty.

Lord Whitty: I have not encountered police reluctance on this matter. There needs to be close co-operation between the Vehicle Inspectorate--or, in some instances, the local authority--and the police in terms of checking vehicles. In general that relationship is satisfactory. But, there are other major pressures on police time which occasionally cut across the arrangements which the Vehicle Inspectorate has agreed with the police. That can constitute a problem. However, that is not a lack of willingness or an objection to the task itself on the part of the police.

Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, will he discuss further the 100,000 permanent sites that he mentioned? When the amendment was being drawn up, there was discussion about whether the relevant figure should be 10,000 lorries a year, 100,000 or a million. If the figure were much higher, that would reduce the number of sites where the measure would apply. Mobile facilities could also be provided. Would that make the principle any more acceptable to my noble friend?

Lord Whitty: There comes a point where the cost and the benefit may cross over. However, in terms of comprehensive coverage, it is likely that any resources which were ploughed into better enforcement on the part of the Vehicle Inspectorate, for example, would yield a greater return than if they were ploughed into providing permanent weighing facilities at a large number of sites. Nevertheless there needs to be a greater number of weighing facilities and therefore there needs to be some increased expenditure in that area. However, we do not accept the prescriptive nature of the amendment.

Earl Attlee: Officials must have enjoyed advising the Minister on his response to the amendment.

Lord Whitty: The figures were calculated on the basis of discussions with the Freight Transport Association.

Earl Attlee: I am well aware that the Freight Transport Association does not much like the amendment. It does not like the idea of consignable liability either.
	As I said, I anticipated that the amendment would be defective but not in what way it would be defective. We thought of beginning the amendment with the words,
	"No person may operate a container port without the weighing facilities".
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, explained the difficulty with that. I was interested in the Minister's reply. We may return with a similar measure. I await to hear what the noble Lord intends to do with the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I am disappointed with the nature of the Minister's response. I fully understand that the figures may be wrong. Perhaps we should have set the weight level per lorry and the number of lorries much higher. However, in the discussions on the 44-tonne lorries where officials were present, it was stated that something would be done. The Minister has mentioned better targeting on the part of the Vehicle Inspectorate. However, it is a question of better targeting using the existing resources. There is little in the way of extra resources being allocated to the Vehicle Inspectorate.
	Further, the state would benefit from the measure in that road maintenance costs would reduce if overweight lorries were taken off the roads. Officials have an obligation to suggest some proposals for weighing schemes. I thought that was part of the bargain to which I was a party. Officials should not take part in discussions, talk about a package and then almost make fun of the proposals put forward rather than coming forward with their own proposals.
	The Freight Transport Association is parti pris--but it was represented at the same discussions and it agreed that there should be better enforcement. Having got the 44-tonne lorries, it is of course now very willing to walk away from its side of the bargain. I believe that we are owed something here. While I accept that the amendment may be defective and withdraw it, this is a matter to which we shall return. I hope that in the meantime we shall have discussions with officials in an attempt to frame an amendment which is fit for purpose.
	One last point: very little enforcement takes place at night because, as my noble friend Lady Thomas said, it is too dangerous to go out onto the roads at night to stop lorries. The amount of overloading and other offences at night is very high indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 411 to 414 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 415:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:RETRAINING (NO. 2)
	(" . After section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, there is inserted--
	"Endorsement of licences.
	36A.--(1) Subsection (2) applies where--
	(a) a person is the holder of a licence;
	(b) he is convicted of a second offence under section 3 (careless driving) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 within a three year period;
	(c) the penalty points to be taken into account under section 29 on the occasion of the second offence number between two and five;
	(d) the court makes an order falling within section 44(1)(b) in respect of the offence.
	(2) Where this subsection applies, the court must send to the Secretary of State a notice containing the particulars required to be endorsed on the counterpart of the person's licence in accordance with the order referred to in subsection (1)(d).
	Mandatory retraining classes.
	36B.--(1) Where the Secretary of State receives a notice sent to him under section 36A(2) of the particulars required to be endorsed on the counterpart of a person's licence, the Secretary of State must by notice served on that person require them to attend mandatory retraining classes.
	(2) A requirement under subsection (1) shall have effect from a date specified in the notice of retraining which may not be earlier than the date of service of that notice."").

Earl Attlee: I am sure that all Members of the Committee have received numerous letters imploring us to address the issue of the penalties available to the courts when there has been a loss of life attributable to careless driving. Many of these letters relate to the tragic death of a child or youngster. There is obviously a well organised campaign under way to raise the profile of this issue and I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the efforts of those responsible.
	Few people in society have the opportunity to save lives, even directly. In Parliament, we can do just that, albeit indirectly. We also know that road safety is at the top of the agenda of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. His road safety strategy paper recognises the problems. I am sure that the Committee is fully aware that in the UK we have a very good and improving road safety record. There is, of course, always room for improvement, and successive governments have made their contributions.
	However, we have a particular problem because we still have a disproportionate number of children killed or seriously injured. Campaigners seek to reduce casualties by increased deterrence through more severe penalties. My understanding is that there is a desire to create an offence of causing death by careless driving or something similar. This offence would attract a custodial sentence.
	I have some difficulty with this approach. First, a responsible and decent motorist will have an absolute dread of the courts finding him or her responsible for death or serious injury. For most that is deterrence enough; penalties in terms of fines and penalty points are secondary considerations. Secondly, it smacks more of revenge and retribution rather than measured punishment. Finally, it can be hard enough to secure an immediate custodial sentence in a case of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving; I cannot see how it would be any easier in a case involving a moment's inattention.
	That does not mean that we should do nothing--far from it. I believe that we should concentrate on the prevention of accidents rather than taking revenge afterwards. Accidents are mainly caused by a lack of skill and inappropriate attitude, but this can be corrected by training people to drive to advanced standards. The Committee may be aware that commercial driver retraining organisations expect to be able to reduce the claims experience of a fleet by 20 per cent.
	It always seems peculiar to me that we religiously submit our vehicles to an annual MOT test but a car driver is tested only once, and at a very tender age. To suggest a compulsory driver retraining scheme would be prohibitively expensive and electoral suicide. On the other hand it could bring about a considerable reduction in accidents. However, we could introduce either retraining or retesting for those drivers who have demonstrated that their driving is not up to standard and who have been convicted of certain moving traffic offences. The prime candidates would be careless or dangerous drivers and those convicted of any offence which involved disqualification.
	Retesting could involve a standard or, more likely, an extended test. Obviously, it would be necessary for a candidate to seek training in order to be able to pass. The anxiety I have to this approach is that it is relatively easy to pretend for 45 minutes that one always drives to advanced standards. Furthermore, it is a poor tool for addressing an inappropriate attitude, and this is so important as regards youngsters and lorry drivers.
	The alternative is to follow the route of retraining, which, after much thought, I prefer. The aim would be to raise the standard of trainee to that of advanced driver in order to be granted the necessary certificate. My amendment has a sting in the tail for the trainer who signs the certificate. If his trainee is involved in an accident after training, the trainer can be called on to justify the grant of his certificate. He cannot just take the money and run. Clearly, the training organisations would need to be properly approved.
	I do not want to weary the Committee with detailed explanations of my amendments, as they are exploratory and, I am quite sure, defective--or even unworkable. The issues that the Committee needs to consider are, first, whether retraining would be an effective tool, or do the Committee and the Government favour revenge and retribution, or indeed some other solution? Secondly, is there more scope for a retesting scheme and, if so, how should it be used? Finally, if the Committee does favour the retraining approach, when should it be made available? Perhaps the answer is after the first more serious moving traffic offence for the novice and after the second for a more experienced motorist. Should the courts have discretion over when to apply it or should it be automatic?
	I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee. I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight. I hope therefore that the Minister will concentrate on informing the Committee of his approach to the problem, which will no doubt have the benefit of considerable research on his part. I appreciate that I may have been speaking out of turn on the groupings, and I would appreciate having a few minutes in which to gather my thoughts. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I think the noble Earl was speaking to Amendment No. 415; I did not actually hear what was called. I do not think there is anything wrong with the ideas put forward in the amendment but it is rather unfortunate that they should have been put forward with an alternative to dealing with careless and dangerous driving. These may be valuable amendments in the fight for safer roads but I should not like to be associated with any moving away from giving penalties to those who drive carelessly and cause death or injury thereby.

Viscount Simon: I am led to understand that the current retraining scheme and the extended test for those who are subject to it have been quite successful in that people do not re-offend to the same extent. It would be nice if magistrates seized their powers in appropriate circumstances not only to disqualify a person but also to take away the vehicle of the offender.

Lord Whitty: I agreed with quite a lot of what the noble Earl said even before I realised what amendment he was referring to. All those who have spoken will be pleased to hear that my colleagues at the Home Office with, in this case, rather more active participation by me in joined-up government, are about to issue a major consultation document, taking forward the right strategies in relation to penalties and the way they are enforced. The document will deal with stronger penalties for careless and dangerous driving, and also with the idea of providing an alternative of retraining in certain circumstances. Retraining, as we have just heard, does have a very good effect in the limited circumstances where it is now applied. It should be much more widely used. It deals also with re-testing in relation to offences attracting a penalty above a certain level. That will all be covered in the Home Office document. There will be a clear sense of direction there. Noble Lords will have the ability to comment on it. I hope that fairly shortly the Home Office will once again be legislating on that issue.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall read it carefully. I look forward to the Home Office consultation paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 416 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 416A:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:SPECIAL TYPES LICENCE
	(" . After subsection (1) of section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, there shall be inserted--
	"(1A) No person may operate a vehicle under the provisions of subsection (1) unless he has been granted a special types licence for the vehicle by the Secretary of State.
	(1B) The Secretary of State shall not grant a licence under subsection (1A) if it appears to him that the applicant is technically incompetent."").

Earl Attlee: Before moving Amendment No. 416A and speaking to Amendment No. 416B, I remind the Committee of my interest. The Committee may not be aware of how expensive vehicle excise duty can be for goods vehicles generally and vehicles carrying abnormal loads in particular. For many goods vehicles the rate is well over £3,000 but for a vehicles taxed as "special types" it is over £5,000. I have no problem with the actual rate. These vehicles often have very high axle weights and may need police escorts. It is right that they should pay their true costs and not be subsidised.
	There are a number of difficulties. First, special types tax is required even if a vehicle is only running at just over 41 tonnes gross, just outside the construction and use regulations threshold. Vehicles that normally run within the construction and use regulations can occasionally be used as special types. However, the taxation class of that vehicle will have to be changed. It may be necessary only to change it for a week. Then the challenge for the operator is to get his refund back from the DVLA. That can take several weeks, as we found out from one of my written Questions for Written Answer answered by the Minister. Regrettably what happens is that some unscrupulous operators do not bother altering their vehicle's taxation class because of the difficulties that I have described. That is unfair to regular heavy hauliers who have all their vehicles properly taxed as special types.
	Secondly, with developing trade, many abnormal loads go to or come from Europe. The European hauliers tend to have far lower vehicle tax rates. Their fuel at home is sometimes up to £1 per gallon cheaper. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that they do not avail themselves of the opportunity to contribute to the Chancellor's coffers by buying his fuel.
	The amendments provide for a vignette scheme to permit abnormal load operation under Section 44. It would apply equally to UK or continental hauliers. The vignettes would be valid for a variety of periods but any period less than one month would not be refundable. I do not know what the Minister's reaction will be to the amendments. However, I would point out that several years ago it was possible to purchase seven-day licences for heavy haulage vehicles. That was because at that time the vehicle excise duty rate for such vehicles was considerable. The law then changed and special types tax was cheap, so the non-availability of seven-day licences did not matter. The rate now is very steep. If the Minister cannot accept the principle of my amendment, perhaps he could consider the re-introduction of seven-day licenses. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With these amendments we return to the types of vehicles we discussed on Amendments Nos. 394 and 396; that is vehicles authorised under Section 44. Those vehicles which fall outside the construction and use regulations but may be used on the public road if granted permission by order under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act. As before, most of those are goods vehicles which carry unusually large or heavy loads, but they might also be prototype vehicles or special vehicles used by the armed forces. If enacted, the clauses will require those operating the vehicles to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State, for which a fee will be levied. That fee will be no higher than the highest rate of vehicle excise duty set out in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and may be rebated to the extent of any vehicle excise duty, or its equivalent for foreign vehicles, paid on the vehicle. I hope that I have described the amendments correctly.
	We do not believe that these measures are necessary or justified. They would simply add a layer of bureaucracy for those operating special types of vehicle. The noble Earl confirmed that the purpose of the proposal is to raise revenue through something akin to the vignette scheme which operates in some European countries, in which vehicles pay a fee to use that country's roads, rebated for domestic vehicles to the extent of their national circulation tax. There is no other service for which this fee pays. We believe that the proposal would be in breach of European law. It seems to us that the proposal would be caught by the Eurovignette directive, which sets a maximum level of 1,250 euros--less than £800--for a modern lorry.
	Even if that were not the case, there would be difficulties arising from the maximum level of fee allowed under the amendment. The noble Earl proposes that the maximum fee should be equivalent to the highest rate of vehicle excise duty in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. I should point out that this is not the £5,170 currently paid by special types vehicles involved in heavy haulage but £9,250. The amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to levy an additional fee of £4,000 on a UK-registered heavy vehicle. That is surely not what the noble Earl proposes.
	The noble Earl said that the fee should take account of road wear costs and the costs of providing police escorts. The Government are reviewing vehicle excise duty for lorries to ensure that rates more accurately reflect both wear and tear on the roads and their environmental impact. Until 1992 the taxation was based quite explicitly on track costs. Although that explicit link has been broken, the structure of goods vehicle taxation has not changed essentially since then. Thus road wear is already a factor in goods vehicle taxation. We intend that in future taxation should reflect road wear more closely.
	Turning now to the point about the cost of police escorts, it is not normal practice for the police service to charge for the escort of abnormal loads. However, several police forces have introduced charging for their services dependent on local circumstances such as the urgency or timing. The issue of escorting abnormal loads is currently being reviewed by ACPO. The option of police charging is one that may be considered. But it would certainly be unlawful for the United Kingdom to put in place a charging structure for escorting those loads which discriminated against hauliers from other EU nations, which would be the case if those costs were taken into account in the excise duty. We are concerned about that problem. For those reasons, I ask the noble Earl not to press the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful consideration of the amendments and for his full answer. I should love to make a quip about starting to read the Finance Bill, but perhaps we should move on. I shall probably come back with an amendment on seven-day licences if I can tempt the Clerks with it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 416B and 416C not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 416D:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MEANS OF ACCESS FOR INSPECTION OF VEHICLE ROOFS
	(" . After subsection (7) of section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted--
	"(8) Regulations made under this section shall provide that vehicles licensed under section 3(5A) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (international operations) shall be fitted with convenient means of access for inspection of the roof of the vehicle, in order to comply with the code of practice prescribed by section 33 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."").

Earl Attlee: Section 33 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for a £2,000 fixed fine for each illegal immigrant carried into the country. That is grossly unfair and I cannot see how it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. We shall find out whether or not it does in October.
	The Committee will be aware that there is a defence if the haulier or driver has complied with the code of practice under the Act. Unfortunately, in order to comply with it, it is necessary to examine the roof of the vehicle. It would not be safe to do so single-handedly with a ladder. It will therefore be necessary to have built into all trailers used for international operations suitable access to the roof. That is the purpose of my amendment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl's amendment seeks to address a serious problem. It is certainly true that the issue of illegal immigration has become especially serious, in particular after the deaths of 58 would-be immigrants. That was a terrible business.
	The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the drivers of all UK-registered lorries travelling internationally have a means of checking the roof. The noble Earl has pointed out that, under the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act, drivers have an obligation to ensure that they are not carrying illegal immigrants. They can discharge that obligation by following the code of practice laid down under the Act.
	How that is done is a matter for the drivers, but I take entirely the point made by the noble Earl about the relevance of inspecting the roof. Illegal entry could be made through the roof of a lorry--but not of all lorries, such as container lorries. However, I do not believe that the amendment would deal with the problem. Other measures are being undertaken that may help to ease the situation.
	The Calais Chamber of Commerce has announced a number of measures to improve security at the port, including security fencing, CCTV, the employment of a private security company to guard the outer perimeter and the introduction of electronically controlled access to the restricted access lorry park. Two companies are actively involved in plans to establish commercial search facilities in and around the port of Calais. We are ready to move to do what we can to facilitate discussions with the French if that becomes necessary.
	The difficulty about the amendment is one of practicality. For example, on a skeletal semi-trailer, if it is used to carry containers, there is nowhere to position a ladder. On some semi-trailers, fixing a ladder to the side or to the rear would take the trailer beyond the maximum permitted dimensions and thus could be dangerous to other traffic. Furthermore, space at the front of a lorry is often limited.
	For practical reasons and because of other solutions being sought that may be more effective, I invite the noble Earl not to press his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the serious response given by the Minister. I have yet to decide whether I shall table another amendment to deal with the same issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 416E:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:REGULATION OF MAXIMUM WEIGHT FOR RECOVERY VEHICLES
	(" . In section 41(2)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 after "trailers" insert "and recovery vehicles".").

Earl Attlee: In moving this amendment and the other amendments in the grouping, I should declare an interest. I own a heavy recovery vehicle, but it is unlikely to be used commercially in the UK again.
	The Minister will be aware that the secondary legislation regarding recovery vehicles is out of date and I am sure that he will agree that it needs to be improved. However, the hour is late--still late rather than early--so I shall not explain those difficulties tonight. However, I shall return to the detailed points at a later stage.
	Turning to Amendment No. 416F, this deals with the status of concrete pumping machines. The very first accident or emergency involving heavy equipment that I witnessed was at school when a mobile crane nearly turned over. The crane was being used for lifting large buckets of concrete in order to build a swimming pool. Nowadays concrete pumping machines are used for the same task because they are more efficient and safer. They generally consist of an articulated or folding boom which supports a large diameter pipe. The machine also mounts a pump to move the concrete from ground level at the edge of the site to where it is required.
	Both mobile cranes and concrete pumping machines spend relatively little time on the road. Their depots are usually within a short drive of the site. Sometimes they spend weeks on one site. The advice from the DVLA used to be that they should be taxed as special vehicles. As a result of a recent court case, that advice is no longer valid. Concrete pumping machines now have to be taxed as goods vehicles. The situation now is that mobile cranes are taxed at about £165 but some large concrete pumping machines attract over £4,000 of vehicle excise duty.
	This situation creates problems. First, it causes severe financial problems for operators. One major concrete pumping company will have to find £100,000 for vehicle excise duty now. Its operating costs will be up by about £200,000 per annum and that will come off the company's bottom line. I remind the Committee that there is very little difference between a concrete pumping machine and a mobile crane.
	Secondly, using a crane with a bucket the old-fashioned way is less safe but better from a taxation point of view. It cannot be right to promote an unsafe working method.
	In a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Finance Act would not be amended to correct the position, and I believe that that is the case. How does the Minister intend to correct this situation--or will he leave it to market forces? I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: Is not the answer to the problem of mobile cranes with arms and booms for them to have a small hook built in which can be lowered, so that the vehicle is then an ordinary crane as well as a concrete pump? In that way, all the manufacturers would save tens of thousands of pounds in licence fees.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the Treasury would approve of that suggestion!
	As I understood it, this group of amendments included Amendments Nos. 416E to 416G and 426D. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has spoken only briefly to Amendment No. 416E, and we are grateful for that. I shall therefore reply briefly.
	A recovery vehicle is covered by the broader category of, in this case, locomotive contained in the Act. The noble Earl's amendment does not in any case provide a definition of what is to be considered a recovery vehicle. Therefore, it is much better to rely on secondary legislation for this purpose. Officials in the department are considering a suitable definition for a recovery vehicle which can be introduced into secondary legislation.
	So far as concerns Amendment No. 416F, the noble Earl is right in saying that a court case has been going on, R v. Reilly Concrete Pumping, and the Appeal Court ruled in the terms that he described. However, I understand that it will be taken to the House of Lords; therefore, I do not think that I ought to comment in any way on that individual case.
	Any change that would have to take place would not be, as proposed in the amendment, under the Road Traffic Act; it would have to be under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. So that would rule out this amendment. Secondary legislation is the most appropriate place for such detailed vehicle definitions.
	Can I tempt the noble Earl not to move Amendments Nos. 416G and 426D in this group by replying to them now? That might save time. Amendment No. 416G allows the Secretary of State to make different regulations in regard to axle and gross weight of recovery vehicles which are locomotives. As I said, there is a reference within the Act to a locomotive, including a recovery vehicle; and on the specific point about vehicle weights, there is a provision to set axle and gross weight limits for these vehicles. Officials are working with the operators of recovery vehicles and highway authorities to develop suitable weight limits that are practical for recovery operations and these can be set within the scope of the existing legislation. They would not need this amendment.
	Amendment No. 426D relates to the definition of railways and tramways. It proposes that the definition should be based on whether it goes mainly in the street rather than partly in the street. We agree that the state of definition as between railways and tramways is imperfect but we do not think that it is important. The Railway Inspectorate assures us that despite any problems with definition the current system does not appear to cause light rail promoters serious difficulty and in practice the process of assessment, inspection and giving permission for systems which fall within the existing definition of "tramways" is not substantially different from that applicable to railways. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl does not feel it necessary to move that amendment.

Earl Attlee: I did not speak in detail to the problems of recovery vehicles, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response on that subject. The tax rate that is applicable to concrete-pumping vehicles will cause enormous damage to the construction industry. I was not aware that an appeal was due to be heard by this House. Obviously, that matter is sub judice and we must await the outcome. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 416E to 416G not moved.]
	Clause 257 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 417 not moved.]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 418:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OFFENCE OF DRIVING WHILE USING A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE
	(" .--(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988, before section 4 insert--
	"Driving while using a hand-held mobile telephone.
	3B. If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while making, receiving or conducting a telephone call using a hand-held mobile telephone he is guilty of an offence."
	(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offenders), before the entry relating to section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert--
	
		
			 "RTA section 3B Driving while using a hand- held mobile telephone. Summarily. Level 4 on the standard scale. Discretionary. Obligatory. 3-9".")

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 413, to which the noble Lord did not speak. Amendment No. 418 inserts a new clause into the Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, thus creating a new offence of driving while making, receiving or conducting a telephone call using a hand-held mobile telephone. It also modifies the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by providing a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale.
	We have discussed this matter more than once. A year ago this month the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who is in his seat, introduced his Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill, which this new clause follows. He was supported by a considerable number of noble Lords. In particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, introduced the results of a good deal of relevant research which clearly indicated the effect on the safety of a driver who uses a hand-held telephone while driving.
	On 6th July of this year the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, drew attention to the evidence of the Stewart report. Other evidence from Canada was also adduced to indicate that drivers using hand-held phones while driving were four times more likely than others to be involved in an accident. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed with the findings of the Stewart report that the use of hand-held telephones could substantially increase the risk of an accident. He also said that it was an increasing phenomenon and that if the use of mobile telephones by drivers while driving continued to increase the Government would review the case for specific legislation.
	I do not claim that my approach to amending the Bill is the best; I am prepared to be told that it is far from adequate. However, in this case there is a good deal to be said for giving the Government the powers that they admit they may need in future. My amendment could be redrafted to suit that approach. I hope that, following the ritual expose of the faults of this amendment, the Minister may yet say that in another form it will prove useful. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have very few of my own teeth left in my head. I have lost my teeth in batches over the years. The second batch was lost when I was reading a book while riding a bicycle along a Norfolk road and impinged on a stationary van. I tell that anecdote because it has a bearing on the apparent self-confidence of people who use a telephone while driving a car, which is becoming a common practice. I have relatives in America where that phenomenon is even more common. Like a number of other practices in that country, I believe that we are likely to follow that example. It is not safe to use a telephone while driving a car any more than it was safe to read while riding a bicycle.
	I do hope that the Government will take this amendment on board or, if they do not accept it, produce something of their own.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have two speeches to make on mobile phones. One speech lasts for three and a half hours and the other for three and a half minutes. It is the latter which I intend to deploy at this late stage of the evening.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for her reference to the efforts I made last year with regard to a Bill in this House. As she rightly said, matters have moved on in terms of the Stewart report and its very substantial evidence of the abuse of road safety implicit in people seeking to make or receive telephone calls while driving a car.
	I declare my interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has campaigned on this issue for some time. At this stage I state the obvious: last year we were treated to considerable police action to demonstrate that this matter could be dealt with under existing law and that that would act as a deterrent to people and establish the fact that this was a practice which ought not to be pursued by drivers. I was grateful for that response, as I am sure all Members in the House were. If it was thought that this would reduce the use of mobile phones by drivers, I am sure the Minister must recognise that it did not have that effect.
	The issue, of course, is quite straightforward. Even if people learn at a sufficient rate of the dangers of such a practice, the number of mobile phones being purchased is growing at such an extraordinary rate that their use on the roads is almost certainly increasing rather than decreasing.
	The necessity for legislation has parallels with what happened over seat belts. Sensible people knew that the wearing of seat belts was a safety aid. But it was not until it became the law of the land that seat belts were universally used and the law largely complied with. I think the same obtains with regard to mobile phones.
	I recognise the reservations of the Minister. There may be imperfections, as the noble Baroness was kind enough to recognise, as regards her proposal. But she is to be congratulated on reintroducing the issue at this stage of the Bill. I would emphasise that something needs to be done in legislative terms, and soon.

Viscount Simon: Most people say that the police have sufficient powers regarding the use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle. Police officers say they would much prefer a specific offence and that is what the noble Baroness, I believe, is trying to achieve.
	It appears to me that she has not made clear in her amendment something I believe she intends; namely, that it is when the vehicle is actually moving that the driver commits an offence and not when it is stationary.
	Finally, something which has to be borne in mind, whether the mobile phone is hand held or not, is that the concentration of the driver can be adversely affected for up to 10 minutes after conversation has ceased.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for introducing this important amendment. I see some problems about the use of a hand held telephone when the vehicle is mobile. I agree it would be desirable to create a specific offence so that motorists knew that they were going to get into trouble if they used their hand held phone while the vehicle was in motion.

Lord Winston: I cannot help intervening briefly, having visited the Transport Research Laboratory this afternoon. Whatever legislation we enact, we must ensure that there is good evidence for doing so. One of the questions we must ask before legislating is the extent to which using a hand-held telephone, with or without hands free, contributes to accidents. My impression was that the answer is not entirely clear but perhaps I am wrong. I hope that the Government will pursue the question because it is important.

Lord Whitty: As my noble friend will know from his visit to the TRL, the issue is being assessed in various research projects in order to ascertain the statistical contribution of mobile telephones to road accidents. Many accident reports indicate that the problem is growing but because it is relatively recent it is not easy to establish the precise statistical base.
	The view of the police is that they do not need the additional power because the act is already covered by general offences relating to undue attention or careless driving. The specification of a particular offence could have two downsides.

Viscount Simon: Is the opinion of the police at ACPO level or officers on the street? The officers on the street would like to see legislation.

Lord Whitty: My noble friend may have conducted an opinion poll, but it is the view of chief police officers. It is also the view of various operational people within the police traffic area. I have no doubt that some police would like to see offences for all kinds of acts, but, in general, police representatives have said that the provision would not be sensible because there are two downsides. The first is that specifying the mobile telephone would take away attention from other distractions such as combing your hair, eating a sandwich and so forth within a car. I leave the rest to Members' imagination. It is therefore a no more serious offence than other ways of being distracted within the car.
	Secondly, the only type of mobile telephone which would cause the police to stop a car would be hand-held because a hands-free telephone could not be seen. Research shows that the level of distraction when using either is almost the same. Therefore, specifying that a hand-held telephone could lead to police action, even if there were not an accident or driving offence, would undermine the message that hands-free telephones can also cause considerable distraction for drivers. Significant research, mainly that carried out in America, suggests that.
	We have said that if that proves not to be the case we will review the situation. If it remains the case, I assure the House that were it to be proved from accident statistics or police reports that current powers are insufficient to deal with the problem, when we are examining penalties and offences we shall consider bringing it forward as a separate offence. However, at this point we are not convinced of the necessity for that, nor are representatives of the police.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that response. Before withdrawing my amendment I want to comment on some of the interventions. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who made it clear that ACPO is arguing against the need for a specific offence. One should not forget that road traffic accidents are a low priority in police work. One may argue about whether that is desirable but it is the case. Therefore, one can understand why the most senior police officers might be reluctant to have to introduce new duties in an area which is already under-resourced.
	I was interested to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I believe that research is now becoming more and more specific in indicating that there is a connection between accidents and the use of a mobile phone while driving--that is, while the vehicle is moving. That is what the amendment says. It refers clearly to a person driving a vehicle and it assumes that the vehicle is moving. However, there is certainly a connection between driving a vehicle, using a phone and being accident-prone while doing so.
	I shall respond briefly to the Minister. I agree with him that it would be more desirable if all use of a mobile phone by a driver of a moving vehicle were prohibited by law. However, I do not believe that I would get that past his eagle eye because there is a divergence of opinion as to whether or not using a mobile phone which is hitched on to the car--that is, it is not hand-held--is as dangerous as using it while it is in one's hand. Therefore, I went for the more obvious of the two targets.
	I am sorry that the Minister does not believe that the amendment will be of use to him in his considerations of how our attitudes and the law should progress with regard to this problem. I consider that it is a problem that is increasingly likely to become a nuisance in the years to come. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 419:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:SPECIAL PARKING AREAS
	(" . In paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 (special parking areas), at the end of the words in parentheses insert "and to moving vehicles failing to comply with the indications given by the signs shown in any of diagrams 612, 613, 614, 953, 960, 961, 1043, 1044, 1048 and 1048.1 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.").

Lord Bradshaw: I move this rather prosaic-looking amendment with some reluctance following the rich diet that we have had today with regard to concrete pumping machines.
	The effect of this amendment would be to extend the scope of camera enforcement of road traffic offences outside London. It would extend that scope in terms of going outside London geographically and would also include other offences, such as banned turns, restricted access, yellow box markings, no entry restrictions and the like.
	First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the letter which he wrote to me and which I received by fax this afternoon. I refer to matters which were raised in the Moses Room during the Grand Committee stage.
	I know that the Government--the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said so then and says so in this letter--want to extend the experience of camera enforcement of bus lanes outside London before moving to extend that enforcement to other offences. Local authorities also want that extension. I have a letter from one local authority which states that it would very much like to have added to the list of offences banned turns, restricted access and parking within yellow box markings.
	I do not ask that the powers should be extended immediately, but that the opportunity should be taken in this legislation to build in the possibility at some future date to extend the powers by order rather than return to primary legislation. The major way to improve public transport in the short term is to get more use out of buses. The greater use of buses is closely linked to buses moving freely along the highway. That means two things: first, the enforcement of parking, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers in his letter; and, secondly, local authorities should take up the powers available to them to take over the enforcement of parking areas through special parking area regulations.
	The police should be able to enforce the provisions on the operation of buses properly throughout the length of streets. We have just talked about their inability to enforce the mobile phone regulations and I was talking earlier about their inability to enforce the rules on the use of restricted roads by heavy lorries. The police do not do those jobs. We have to move on technologically. I seek an assurance that the Minister will at least consider taking the powers, even if they are not used until he has the experience that he is seeking of the enforcement of bus lanes outside London. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord has correctly divined that my view is that we should concentrate on making sure that the extension of enforcement powers to bus lanes, which we agreed in Grand Committee, should run and we should see how the enforcement powers work, rather than extending them to other potential offences. I remain of that opinion. The amendment would not meet the noble Lord's objectives because it would make no provision for the issuing of regulations, which he recognises would be needed were we to do as he suggests.
	In general, the Government tend not to warm to suggestions that we take powers that we are probably not going to use within the foreseeable future. We intend to stick with that doctrine and not take powers when we will not know for some time whether we will need them. That will depend on how effective the bus lane enforcement provisions are. Reluctantly, I fear that I cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. All that I can say is that the prospects of the Government achieving their 10-year transport plan and the better use of bus services and reductions in traffic levels that I know that they want will be very much reduced if they do not take powers to enable them to free up our streets as quickly as possible so that buses can make a proper contribution. I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments No. 420 and 421 not moved.]

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: moved Amendment No. 422:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN AND ROAD TRAFFIC
	(" .--(1) As part of their local transport plan, and subject to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, a local transport authority may designate any residential road or roads within their area as a home zone, and any rural road within their area as a quiet lane, for any or all of the following purposes--
	(a) improving the environment;
	(b) improving the safety and security of the community in whose area the home zone is situated;
	(c) improving safety on rural roads, especially for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders, by reducing the risk of accidents;
	(d) protecting the character and distinctiveness of the countryside from damage to traffic.
	(2) The Secretary of State may introduce regulations with regard to home zones or quiet lanes which may have any or all of the following effects--
	(a) giving pedestrians and pedal cyclists precedence on any highway in a home zone, and pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horseriders precedence on any quiet lane;
	(b) requiring the driver of any mechanically powered vehicle to accord such precedence to any pedestrian, pedal cyclist or horse rider;
	(c) requiring pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders to show reasonable behaviour towards any mechanically powered vehicle, and not wilfully to obstruct its passage;
	(d) requiring physical or other measures to reduce traffic speeds to no more than 10 mph in a road designated as a home zone, or 20 mph on a designated quiet lane.").

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 423. I need not take up your Lordships' time at this hour of the night to explain the concept of home zones and quiet lanes. I know that Ministers have been much persuaded by the experiences of our European neighbours. In many continental towns and cities, home zones have made a significant contribution to the safety of vulnerable road users and have encouraged walking and cycling. Perhaps most significantly in the long term, reclaiming space for people rather than vehicles has done much to foster a sense of community, which we all fear is fast disappearing.
	Quiet lanes are rather different in character and a less well proven concept but they could make an equally valuable contribution to safe and sustainable transport in rural areas, as well as improving the quality of life.
	I am sure that we are all looking forward with interest to the outcome of the pilot schemes currently under development but it seems a shame not to draw on the vast experience of our European neighbours. They have shown that where there are successful home zones, cars do not take priority over pedestrians and cyclists and are required to move at walking pace, although in practice something like 9 miles per hour is tolerated.
	In Committee in another place the Minister said that the Government would consider changing the law if the evidence of the pilot projects showed that it was necessary. Our Amendment No. 422 is intended to help the Government by providing a framework within which they could, by regulation, achieve these schemes, which have such widespread support.
	In Amendment No. 423 we are again seeking to help the Government to achieve their road safety objectives by enabling the development of a rural road hierarchy. The Government's road safety strategy, which highlights the well understood link between speed and accident rates, further points out that our rural roads have a serious accident problem. My authority, Suffolk County Council, chose to address that by introducing a presumed 30 miles per hour speed limit in all villages. Although that has been highly successful, both in terms of reducing accident rates and speed, a more strategic whole route approach would have been even more effective.
	An area-wide route hierarchy would enable local authorities to develop a network in which roads are used for the purposes for which they are truly fitted rather than an outdated classification. Not only would objectives of safety and sustainability be served by that, but road maintenance, signing, lighting and movement of freight would also be better served.
	On several occasions during the passage of this Bill the Minister has referred to the toolkit approach, intending to provide local authorities with the tools that they need to do the job. I urge the Government to add those extra tools to the kit. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I, too, have put my name to this amendment. Although at this time of the evening I shall not indulge my personal reminiscences about my accidents in vehicles of different kinds, I have some personal experience of the problems caused by a combination of faulty marking of roads and an inability to have speed limits on rural roads. I believe that we need to attend to both of those matters. Allowing rural areas, in particular, to set up hierarchies of roads and, therefore, to sign them adequately for the benefit of those who use them will be a serious step forward towards reducing the unfortunately high incidence of motor accidents in the countryside.

Lord Berkeley: I rise to support this amendment. I was slightly surprised not to see it in Part II, somewhere near Clause 107, but I am sure there is a good reason for that. It seems to embody many things about which noble Lords have been arguing in the way of implementing the transport White Paper. In particular it would be great to see something like the home zones on the face of the Bill, which could be implemented where local authorities require them.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminds me that at an earlier stage in the passage of this Bill I tabled an amendment that I hoped would act as an enabling amendment with regard to the local road hierarchy amendment and the speed limits that would flow from that. Unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour with the Minister. Perhaps he can be persuaded that a redrafting of that enabling amendment may be of value. I hope he will address that matter in his reply.
	I hope we have achieved some safety amendments to this part of the Bill which is titled "Miscellaneous and supplementary". During Committee stage, or any other part of the passage of a Bill, we are not permitted to change the titles or the sideline titles of a Bill, but perhaps the Minister will consider renaming it "Safety, miscellaneous and supplementary" to reflect what I hope will be its slightly different character.

Lord Whitty: Any consideration of that last point will depend on how we return to some of the issues on Report. While I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling these amendments, I cannot accept them in their present form. I would like to take them away for consideration. Both home zones and a new approach to speed limits are central parts of our approach to urban and rural road accident problems and road safety problems. Clearly, while there are many provisions involved in establishing home zones, where existing regulations will allow local authorities to do what is required to establish a home zone, there may be others that are not there, although some of the specifics in the amendment of the noble Baroness run into the difficulties of absolute precedents which were discussed in another place.
	I would have to look at that carefully. Nevertheless, I should like to take away that amendment, along with Amendment No. 423, which is probably too prescriptive for my taste. But it is important to give local authorities adequate powers to introduce new speed hierarchies in a way which is more rapid than the designation of speed limits on roads is for local authorities and is a less expensive and time consuming process.
	Therefore I should like to look at both amendments in that context and return to this matter after the Summer Recess. We can then discuss whether these should be enabling clauses or the more prescriptive clauses tabled by the noble Baroness today. However, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn at this stage.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I have no intention of being prescriptive, either for him or anyone else. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 not moved.]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: moved Amendment No. 426:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:STREET WORKS: CHARGES FOR ADVERSE AFFECT ON TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC
	(" .--(1) Except in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes, cables or other works, an undertaker planning to execute street works in a maintainable highway must inform (in respect of local transport) the local transport authority and (in respect of traffic regulation) the traffic authority (or in Greater London, Transport for London) of the proposed works.
	(2) Where--
	(a) the local transport authority considers that street works notified to them under subsection (1) adversely effect the implementation of the local transport plan made under section 98, or
	(b) the traffic authority (or in Greater London, Transport for London) considers that those street works adversely effect the passage of traffic on a road or roads,
	the relevant authority may levy a charge of £1,000 for each day or part of a day in which a street, or a unit of area of a street, is occupied for the purpose of executing those street works.
	(3) Where street works notified under subsection (1) occupy more than one unit of area of a street a charge may be levied under subsection (2) in respect of each unit.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations--
	(a) as to the meaning of "unit of area" in this section;
	(b) as to the time and manner of making payment of a charge;
	(c) for the relevant authority to reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute for the sum mentioned in subsection (2) such higher sum as appears to him appropriate.
	(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) Regulations under subsection (4)(a) may make different provision in respect of different areas or classes of area or for different streets or classes of street.
	(8) Regulations under subsection (4) shall be laid before Parliament and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
	(9) In this section--
	(a) "local transport authority" has the same meaning as in section 98 above,
	(b) "road" has the same meaning as in section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
	(c) "traffic authority" has the same meaning as in section 121A of that Act.
	(10) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.").

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: In moving Amendment No. 426 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil--he asked me to apologise to the Committee for the fact that he cannot be here this evening--I shall speak also to Amendment No. 429 which also appears on the Marshalled List in his name.
	Members of the Committee will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has this year waged something of a one-man campaign on the issue of streetworks. He asked his first Question on the subject on 7th February as a Business Question to my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, when he reminded your Lordships of the sessional order which requires the chief of police to keep the passages through the streets leading to this House free and open. He followed that by a plethora of Starred Questions in March, April and May and an Unstarred Question debate, and he intervened on other occasions. He then piloted a Private Member's Bill through all stages in your Lordships' House which had its Second Reading on 30th June.
	The noble Lord tabled these amendments which are consistent with the other elements in what I can only call a remarkable crusade. The purpose behind Amendment No. 426 is to enable local transport and traffic authorities to charge streetwork undertakers--utilities and others--a daily charge for the time they occupy a publicly maintainable highway. It contains a number of related provisions which allow for increasing the level of charges and also for their waiver or reduction. Amendment No. 429 ensures that those charging provisions apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The two amendments together provide more than a passing resemblance to the provision in the streetworks Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
	I am happy to move these amendments on the noble Lord's behalf for two reasons. First, I believe he is right to try to make the people who inflict such misery and inconvenience on all road users pay something by way of recompense; secondly, because I hope my noble friend may have something positive to say in response. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The intention of the first and substantive clause is to enable local transport authorities and traffic authorities to charge streetwork undertakers--utilities and others--a daily charge of £1,000 for the time during which they occupy a publicly maintainable highway, subject to any regulations the Secretary of State may make under those proposed powers.
	While I am second to none in my admiration of the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in pursuit of solutions to what is undoubtedly a real problem of disruption on the roads at present, his amendment runs the risk of creating an additional level of bureaucracy. I say "an additional level" because it would introduce new roles of surveillance over streetworks by local transport authorities and traffic authorities under provisions which are unrelated to the main controlling legislation, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. And certain aspects of the amendment, for example on dealing with emergency works, would cut across the requirements of that Act. It would be a recipe for confusion. If there are to be changes to the controls, the Government believe that they should come through that Act or amendments to it.
	I am sure that all of us in this Committee are very conscious of the seriousness of the problem. The Government sympathise with the objectives of the noble Lord's amendments and would not want to close off options for dealing with the problem but we cannot accept the amendment as it stands. However, I can agree to take it away and consider whether we can bring forward our own amendment on Report to amend the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 so that the Secretary of State could, if necessary, make regulations allowing responsible highway authorities to require utilities and others carrying out street works in England to pay them a lane rental for the occupation of the highway. This would be in addition to the existing power in Section 74 to require payments by utilities in the event of prolonged occupation of the highway, for which we have already been drawing up a scheme.
	The second amendment would commit the administrations in Scotland and Wales to the introduction of charges in an area of policy that is devolved to them. Although I am unaware of any strong desire on their part to introduce parallel measures, I must protect their position and, therefore, must oppose the noble Lord's proposal to extend the powers beyond England.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was not able to be here to move his amendment. However, as a former Minister of Transport who has done the state some service, and with midnight approaching, I do not believe that any of us would grudge him his beauty sleep. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who, as he said, discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, earlier, will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will be more than satisfied with my noble friend's reply. Therefore, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elder: moved Amendment No. 426A:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Financial assistance: inland waterway and sea freight
	:TITLE3:FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INLAND WATERWAY AND SEA FREIGHT
	.--(1) The Secretary of State may make grants or other payments for the purpose of securing or encouraging the carriage of goods by inland waterway or by sea rather than by road where he is satisfied that that is in the public interest
	(2) Grants or payments under this section may in particular be made in respect of facilities for or in connection with the carriage of goods by inland waterway or by sea (including facilities for loading or unloading goods).
	(3) Grants or payments under this section shall be of such amount and subject to such conditions (including conditions requiring their repayment in specified circumstances) as the Secretary of State may determine.
	(4) So far as it relates to inland waterways in Wales the power conferred by this section is a power of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(5) The power conferred by this section may only be exercised in or as regards Scotland if its exercise relates to reserved matters within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998.
	(6) In this section "inland waterway" includes both a natural and an artificial inland waterway.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 426B to 426F not moved.]
	Clauses 258 and 259 agreed to.
	Schedule 30 [Repeals and revocations]:
	[Amendment No. 427 not moved.]

Lord Elder: moved Amendment No. 427A:
	Page 342, line 16, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1993 c. 43. Railways Act 1993. Section 140.") 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 260 to 263 agreed to.
	Clause 264 [Extent]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 428:
	Page 164, line 19, at end insert ("and section ("Enforcement of requirements relating to drivers' hours")").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 429 not moved.]
	Clause 264, as amended, agreed to.
	Remaining clause agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Learning and Skills Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendments to certain Commons amendments agreed to.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons with the amendments in lieu of the words left out of the Bill agreed to; with certain Commons amendments to which the Lords had disagreed not insisted upon; with amendments to other Commons amendments agreed to; and with a consequential amendment to the Bill agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.